Re: Physics Professor's PEER REVIEWED Paper on 9/11 WTC Controlled Demolitions -- Additional Info
RicodJour
>
> Although this is not a scientific peer review, it IS definitely a peer
> review. (Anyone refuting this does not know what a peer review is.)
I have trouble believing that you can post something like that and not
be laughing when you do it.
Refute what? That someone without technical expertise read his paper?
Big deal. You read it,and look where that got you. Experts have
alreay refuted 99% of your drivel. Keep hanging on to that 1% - it's
what keeps you insane. And we love you for it. :)
You should also refine your definition of peer review as it is
incorrect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
Other than that, excellent post!
R
Freedom Fighter
news:1141327318.3...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>> Although this is not a scientific peer review, it IS definitely a peer
>> review. (Anyone refuting this does not know what a peer review is.)
>
> I have trouble believing that you can post something like that and not
> be laughing when you do it.
>
> Refute what? That someone without technical expertise read his paper?
> Big deal. You read it,and look where that got you. Experts have
> alreay refuted 99% of your drivel. Keep hanging on to that 1% - it's
> what keeps you insane. And we love you for it. :)
Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people that
can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so they resort to childishly
attacking the person that holds the opinion.
Pathetic.
RicodJour
> >>
> >> Although this is not a scientific peer review, it IS definitely a peer
> >> review. (Anyone refuting this does not know what a peer review is.)
> >
> > I have trouble believing that you can post something like that and not
> > be laughing when you do it.
> >
> > Refute what? That someone without technical expertise read his paper?
> > Big deal. You read it,and look where that got you. Experts have
> > alreay refuted 99% of your drivel. Keep hanging on to that 1% - it's
> > what keeps you insane. And we love you for it. :)
>
> Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people that
> can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so they resort to childishly
> attacking the person that holds the opinion.
>
> Pathetic.
Parroting the same tired mantra in defense of a ridiculous assertation
demonstrates the lack of the critical faculty necessary for discerning
between plausible and fantasy. It also lacks creativity. Oh, one more
thing :)~
R
RicodJour
>
> You are obviously out of your mind. Not one scientist has debunked
> Jones' 17 reasons. Not one. If you think otherwise, you are delusional.
But wait! What about your alter-ego?
"Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people
that
can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so they resort to
childishly
attacking the person that holds the opinion."
Aren't you attacking me for my opinion that you're a fruit loop? Isn't
that immature and unintelligent? Tsk, tsk, tsk.
> The paper is being published by Elsevier. Elsevier is the world's leading
> publisher of scientific and medical literature:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier
>
> Sorry, but YOU LOSE!!!
Why don't you take your own advice? From a recent post of yours in
another newsgroup:
From: Truth & Honesty
Date: Tues, Feb 28 2006 8:41 am
Email: Truth & Honesty <t...@nospam.com>
Groups: soc.culture.german
Why choose Christianity instead of psychology counseling?
The benefits of Christianity far outstrips that of the American
psychology field. Here's why;
The teachings of Christ are to forgive, not to dwell on problems.
You're not ignoring the teachings, are you? Try not to dwell.
R
RicodJour
BTW, you do know your main man, defender of your faith (in
conspiracies), right?
This from one of his recent posts:
Date: Wed, Mar 1 2006 5:17 pm
Email: "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net>
Groups: alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.security.terrorism,
soc.culture.iraq, uk.current-events.terrorism
Wake up - ALL organized religion is a crock!
Myth, superstition, psychological con-game, call it what you will -
today's
scam cult is tomorrow's gospel faith, and there will always be dumb
fools
that will kill each other over it.
Religion - THE BANE OF HUMANITY!
Hmmm. Frankly, I'm saddened to find out that the two of you can't play
nicely. I had such high hopes. Maybe you should sit down and work out
your differences so you can present a unified, if marginally sane, face
to the world.
Thanks.
R
TRUTH
news:1141342426.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
What? I didn't post that.
P. Fritz
I think it demonstrates that he forgot to take his meds this morning
> R
>
sanjian
> "P. Fritz" <paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet> wrote in
> news:120f1oa...@corp.supernews.com:
> Perhaps you didn't take yours. Pop a doctor prescribed pill in your
> mouth. It might help you see 9/11 reality
The only perscription we need is 800mg of Motrin for the headache your
incessant ranting is giving us.
TRUTH
If the Truth of 9/11 gives you a headache (which is very understandable
btw), then feel free to kill filter me
Jim
> BYU Physics Professor, Dr Steven Jones put out a paper titled: Why
> Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
>
> This paper gives 17 specific reasons to consider controlled demolitions
> at the WTC.
>
>
>
> THE PAPER WILL BE PUBLISHED IN A PEER REVIEWED BOOK:
>
>
> This paper will be published in the book series "Research in Political
> Economy" this spring.
>
> The volume will be titled "The Hidden History of 9-11-2001".
>
>
> Although this is not a scientific peer review, it IS definitely a peer
> review. (Anyone refuting this does not know what a peer review is.)
>
> The book was peer reviewed by scholars in the political/economics area.
> The paper is therefore considered appropriate by Elsevier, the world's
> largest publisher of medical and scientific literature.
>
> Also scheduled for publication in this book is Christian Theologian
> David Ray Griffin's paper on WTC controlled demolitions. Obviously, the
> highly educated scholars at the world's largest publisher of medical and
> scientific literature consider these papers on WTC controlled
> demolitions to be pieces of scholastic work. If they didn't, they would
> not publish it!
>
>
> Dr Jones' paper is now up to draft version 5.1, New information is being
> added all the time. Obviously, he's been collaborating with other
> scientists. With each draft revision, his paper gets more and more
> scientifically accurate and properly reasoned. Obviously, Elsevier (the
> world's largest publisher of medical and scientific literature) sees
> this. Otherwise the would not publish it!
>
>
> Dr Jones' conducted two seminars. His Feb 1 seminar can be downloaded:
> http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steven-jones-utah-seminar-video.html
>
>
> 9/11 WTC 'Controlled Demolition Theory' Analysis Thread:
> http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
>
>
> 200+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns': Found in the Mainstream Media
> http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
>
>
>
> INTERESTING ARTICLE:
>
> "Report on Question 9-11- A Call to Action Event"
>
> quote:
> "The official 9-11 story is falling apart, activists spoke on how to
> raise consciousness..."
>
> "Thursday night, February 23, 2006 at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland,
> HUNDREDS of people converged for an amazing event..."
>
> Take a look at the picture!
> http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1804867.php
>
>
>
> NUMEROUS RADIO SHOWS!
> Air America / Coast to Coast AM. MILLIONS of people listen!
>
> For archived shows go to www.st911.org
>
>
>
>
>
> Also see:
> http://911truth.org
> http://ny911truth.org
> http://3c.911truth.org
> http://st911.org
> http://911Busters.com
> http://911Review.com
> http://911research.wtc7.net
> http://cooperativeresearch.org
> http://www.question911.com/links.php
It has been repeatedly demonstrated in incontrovertible terms that the
Reverend Jones is not a reputable or qualified authority on this matter. He has
been thoroughly discredited and alienated by his own colleagues. This
obvious to nearly everyone except you who appears oblivious the fact that
your every assertion has been demonstrably proven false. When confronted
by a preponderance of contradictory data you don't recognize or
acknowledge it, you simply disappear and then reappear in somewhere else
regurgitating the same nonsense as if nothing ever happened. So it seems
to me that there are 2 possible options.
A.) You are either quite young or have a limited education, or are somehow
confused by the subject material, or possibly some combination of these.
or,
B.) You are purposefully and willfully ignoring the facts when there presented
to you and are actively choosing to disseminate false information with the
intention of misleading the public.
I find it disappointing and deeply troubling in either case. The irony is that you
purport to be a vehicle of 'TRUTH' and allegedly an observing Christian. In
reality you are the antithesis truthfulness and in violation Gods holy 6th
commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Give False Testimony'.
TRUTH
news:sOadnVNi04-...@comcast.com:
You are pretty much out of your mind. First, Professor Jones is not a
reverend, he is a 20 year physics professor in a major university.
Second, he has not been "discredited and alienated by his own colleague",
as you have said. For you to even assume such nonsense shows you are
totally ignorant of the facts.
Professor Jones' paper is based on science. It will be included in a book
that will be published by Elsevier, the largest publisher of scientific
and medical literature in the world.
Also to be included, is Dr David Ray Griffin's paper. Dr Griffin is a
very well respected Professor of Emeritus.
You need to get a grip on yourself.
RicodJour
>
> Also to be included, is Dr David Ray Griffin's paper. Dr Griffin is a
> very well respected Professor of Emeritus.
I used to be a Professor of Emeritus, then I retired.
R
Jim
I assure you that I am in full control of my facilities, it's you who is having
difficulties with reality. In short, your just plain wrong on every count. You
don't even spell his name correctly, it's Stephen not Steven. I urge you to
educate yourself with the facts before you continue to embarrass you self in
a public forum. For your convenience I am reproducing a summary of my
earlier post.
Dr. Stephen E. Jones, in addition to being a physicist at BYU, a Mormon
institution, is a minister and founder of 'God's Kingdom Ministries.' Among
other things, he's authored books called: 'The Laws of the Second coming',
and 'Secrets of Time' (end-time prophecy).
Jones has some critics among his own associates: Dr. Miller, chairman of the
Civil and Environmental Engineering department at BYU: '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'.
Structural engineering professors Steven Benzley and Rick Balling: 'Professor
Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his
analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues
that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering
faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support
the hypotheses of Professor Jones'.
And from the BYU physics department: 'The university is aware that Professor
Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the
collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of
scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members.
Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced
that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific
venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review.'
Jones is allegedly being censored in public statements made by BYU itself.
'BYU Brass Discredit Physics Professor for Saying WTC Brought Down by
Controlled Demolition'. Allegedly he has been instructed to stop giving
interviews, possibly by the dean of the College of Physical and Mathematical
Sciences, Earl Woolley.
During an interview on the talk show hosted by Tucker Carlson from MSNBC,
Carlson suggested Jones leave the country: 'If you really believe the U.S.
government killed 3000 of its own citizens for no reason and lied about it and
invaded Afghanistan as a result of something it did, you ought to leave the
country... because that's so terrible... so evil, that your tax dollars go in to
support it make you complicit in it... if you really believe that, you ought to
leave'.
Jones response to this controversy was that it was a Bush administration
conspiracy to silence his lone voice of reason.
TRUTH
news:8fmdnWbAmIedQprZ...@comcast.com:
>>>> .h tml
I'm wrong on every count??? Look who's embarrassing themselves!
His first name is Steven with a "V". This is verifiable via BYU official
website.
>
> Dr. Stephen E. Jones, in addition to being a physicist at BYU, a
> Mormon institution, is a minister and founder of 'God's Kingdom
> Ministries.' Among other things, he's authored books called: 'The Laws
> of the Second coming', and 'Secrets of Time' (end-time prophecy).
That is not the same person.
> Jones has some critics among his own associates: Dr. Miller, chairman
> of the Civil and Environmental Engineering department at BYU: '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'.
>
> Structural engineering professors Steven Benzley and Rick Balling:
> 'Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not
> convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to
> relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer
> review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of
> Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor
> Jones'.
>
> And from the BYU physics department: 'The university is aware that
> Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence
> regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being
> questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many
> of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college
> administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have
> been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure
> rigorous technical peer review.'
It took a lot of guts for Steven Jones to come forward. You think his
associates are going to automatically jump on the bandwagon and speak up?
There are afraid for their lives and their families lives! Give it time.
> Jones is allegedly being censored in public statements made by BYU
> itself. 'BYU Brass Discredit Physics Professor for Saying WTC Brought
> Down by Controlled Demolition'. Allegedly he has been instructed to
> stop giving interviews, possibly by the dean of the College of
> Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Earl Woolley.
That was a silly inaccurate news article. Jones' was not censored. Jones
and the dean mutually agreed to do less interviews. The obvious reason
for this is to avoid problems with the funders of BYU: the government.
> During an interview on the talk show hosted by Tucker Carlson from
> MSNBC, Carlson suggested Jones leave the country: 'If you really
> believe the U.S. government killed 3000 of its own citizens for no
> reason and lied about it and invaded Afghanistan as a result of
> something it did, you ought to leave the country... because that's so
> terrible... so evil, that your tax dollars go in to support it make
> you complicit in it... if you really believe that, you ought to
> leave'.
>
> Jones response to this controversy was that it was a Bush
> administration conspiracy to silence his lone voice of reason.
>
Yes, Carlson is an anti-American asshole for suggesting someone leave the
US for expressing their opinion. He obviously has no idea what "freedom"
means.
Who do you think wants to silence his lone voice of reason? bin Laden?
Besides, what does that have to do with anything?
I urge you to research what you think you know before posting more.
Jim
Thank you I stand corrected, you appear to be correct on the name spelling,
its a V and not a PH and I confused him with someone else. This does not
change anything else I've said.
> It took a lot of guts for Steven Jones to come forward. You think his
> associates are going to automatically jump on the bandwagon and speak
> up? There are afraid for their lives and their families lives! Give it
> time.
Afraid for their lives? This stretches credulity. He was denounced because he
is wrong, not because of some vast conspiracy. Only in the fevered
imagination of the conspiracy theorist does that make sense.
> That was a silly inaccurate news article.
No less credible or silly that anything your theory proposed, just calling it silly
does not disqualify it as a valid article.
> Jones' was not censored. Jones
> and the dean mutually agreed to do less interviews. The obvious reason
> for this is to avoid problems with the funders of BYU: the government.
Thats Jones's version of events, of course he is going to say that.
'Professor Steven E. Jones only was in the public eye for five days before
BYU told him to stop giving interviews.'
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/29-Nov-2005.html
These are not my statements, the quotes are from Jones's own colleagues:
Dr. Miller, chairman of the Civil and Environmental Engineering department at
BYU, Structural engineering professors Steven Benzley and Rick Balling
and the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology, and many of
Professor Jones's other department and college administrators. All of these
people can't be a part of your giant conspiratorial web afraid for their lives.
I don't know how much additional information you need, Jones is wrong as
you are wrong. Again thank you though for clarifying the name, a V and not
a PH, this is a critical difference obviously. I hope you accept my apology
for this egregious spelling error.
> Besides, what does that have to do with anything?
If a bow tied nerd like Tucker Carlson calls you a joke, you can be reasonably
certain that your a joke, and this is obvious to everyone.
So to review: he was publicly ridiculed, he was censored by BYU, and he was
discredited and alienated by his own colleagues. You are clearly wrong on all
these key issues. I misspelled a name and admitted my error. Who here
divorced from reality?
TRUTH
news:2bKdncGgjon...@comcast.com:
>>>>>> eo .h tml
Your comments about his religious affiliations are wrong. So, yes, it
does change what you said.
>
>> It took a lot of guts for Steven Jones to come forward. You think his
>> associates are going to automatically jump on the bandwagon and speak
>> up? There are afraid for their lives and their families lives! Give
>> it time.
>
> Afraid for their lives? This stretches credulity. He was denounced
> because he is wrong, not because of some vast conspiracy. Only in the
> fevered imagination of the conspiracy theorist does that make sense.
If you can't see how people would be afraid for their lives in a
situation like this, then you're obviously not ready to understand.
He have no basis to say he is wrong. You are not a scientist. He is. In
fact, he's a tenured PhD with 20 years experience. And as I said in
another post, not one scientist debunked his paper.
Your "fevered imagination of the conspiracy theorist" comment
demonstrates you are determined to believe the government's version at
all cost, and consider the alternate theory unrealisic. This is no way to
find answers. However, it is a way to hide behind your reality shield and
keep your head in the sand. A pity. You should consider avoiding such
immature comments and instead look at evidence with a clear head.
>
>> That was a silly inaccurate news article.
>
> No less credible or silly that anything your theory proposed, just
> calling it silly does not disqualify it as a valid article.
Jones' paper is based on scientific laws and logical reasoning. Jones is
a tenured PhD physics professor with 20 years experience. He's employed
at a major university. His paper will be featured in a book published by
a company known for its expertise in scholastic scientific and medical
literature. Anyone calling his theories silly is not thinking clearly.
>
>> Jones' was not censored. Jones
>> and the dean mutually agreed to do less interviews. The obvious
>> reason for this is to avoid problems with the funders of BYU: the
>> government.
>
> Thats Jones's version of events, of course he is going to say that.
>
> 'Professor Steven E. Jones only was in the public eye for five days
> before BYU told him to stop giving interviews.'
> http://www.arcticbeacon.com/29-Nov-2005.html
>
> These are not my statements, the quotes are from Jones's own
> colleagues: Dr. Miller, chairman of the Civil and Environmental
> Engineering department at BYU, Structural engineering professors
> Steven Benzley and Rick Balling and the Fulton College of Engineering
> and Technology, and many of Professor Jones's other department and
> college administrators. All of these people can't be a part of your
> giant conspiratorial web afraid for their lives. I don't know how much
> additional information you need, Jones is wrong as you are wrong.
> Again thank you though for clarifying the name, a V and not a PH, this
> is a critical difference obviously. I hope you accept my apology for
> this egregious spelling error.
>
>> Besides, what does that have to do with anything?
>
> If a bow tied nerd like Tucker Carlson calls you a joke, you can be
> reasonably certain that your a joke, and this is obvious to everyone.
Only to brainwashed people who think in that illogical and irrational
way.
>
> So to review: he was publicly ridiculed, he was censored by BYU, and
> he was discredited and alienated by his own colleagues. You are
> clearly wrong on all these key issues. I misspelled a name and
> admitted my error. Who here divorced from reality?
>
If you can't read between the lines, then obviously you are. Your
thinking pattern is warped.
sanjian
> You are pretty much out of your mind. First, Professor Jones is not a
> reverend, he is a 20 year physics professor in a major university.
> Second, he has not been "discredited and alienated by his own
> colleague", as you have said. For you to even assume such nonsense
> shows you are totally ignorant of the facts.
>
>
> Professor Jones' paper is based on science. It will be included in a
> book that will be published by Elsevier, the largest publisher of
> scientific and medical literature in the world.
>
> Also to be included, is Dr David Ray Griffin's paper. Dr Griffin is a
> very well respected Professor of Emeritus.
The entire architecture school, building construction school, and as many
from the civil engineering department as I've been able to ask at Virginia
Tech all laugh at the idea. You've got two wingnut professors, I've got an
entire school of good ones. This is at an actual technical school, not a
liberal arts school with a physics department.
However, Jim was off about one thing, Brother Jones is not a Reverend - the
LDS church does not have such a position. However, he is likely a priest
and an elder.
Systemrecovery
TRUTH wrote:
> BYU Physics Professor, Dr Steven Jones put out a paper titled:
> Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
WHAT A FUCKING MORON LOSER YOU ARE
WHAT A LISTLESS ASSWIPE, DRIVEN ABOUT WITH EVERY WIND THAT COMES DOWN
THE PIKE
You just need to go hunting with ol dick cheney, let him explain to you
how things REALLY work...
SORE FUCKING LOSER CRYBABY
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Phil Cav
"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977A8DA...@130.81.64.196...
> NUMEROUS RADIO SHOWS!
> Air America / Coast to Coast AM. MILLIONS of people listen!
>
> For archived shows go to www.st911.org
> NUMEROUS RADIO SHOWS!
> Air America / Coast to Coast AM. MILLIONS of people listen!
>
> For archived shows go to www.st911.org
oh, I remember, I heard that show. It was in between the two alien abduction
segments.
Jim
Dr Jones is recognized primarily for is work in cold fusion. He is educated in
neither controlled demolitions or as a structural steel engineer. He is
not received any support whatsoever from BYU, and has been censured and
publicly ostracized by that institution for his groundless assertions made in
the 'Why indeed...' paper.
David R. Griffin is a fundamentalist theologian. He is also not educated in
controlled demolitions or as a structural steel engineer. I saw his rambling,
disconnected discussion on C-SPAN. It was peppered with religious references
and occasional laughter from the audience. In short, no one takes these people
seriously.
> Your comments about his religious affiliations are wrong. So, yes, it
> does change what you said.
What specifically? Just saying its changed doesn't make it so.
> If you can't see how people would be afraid for their lives in a
> situation like this, then you're obviously not ready to understand.
What are you suggesting here, a cabal of evil-doers? The men in black?
Who are they in danger from? Your contentions are as groundless and
convoluted as Jones's paper.
> ...to find answers. However, it is a way to hide behind your reality shield
> and keep your head in the sand. A pity. You should consider avoiding
> such immature comments and instead look at evidence with a clear head.
Yes, I shield myself with reality, I find it is much better than the alternative.
Specifically, which immature comments are you referring to?
> Jones' paper is based on scientific laws and logical reasoning.
Which laws? Which form of logical reasoning? Deductive? Inductive? Be specific.
> Jones is
> a tenured PhD physics professor with 20 years experience.
So he can't be wrong then? He is not educated in controlled demolitions or as
a structural steel engineer.
> His paper will be featured in a book published by
> a company known for its expertise in scholastic scientific and medical
> literature. Anyone calling his theories silly is not thinking clearly.
It has been demonstrated to you that this is a specious reference:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism/browse_thread/thread/
490d825fbc2e10d6/
c6360961b069897c?lnk=st&q=&rnum=30#c6360961b069897c
This publication purportedly be a political, economic discussion, not a
scientific dissertation extolling the finer points of your conspiracy theory.
I have repeatedly called for commentary from industry professionals to support
this fledgling theory. There are abundant structural steel engineers and
controlled demolition experts who have publicly challenged your series of
events. Not a single qualified industry professional has come forward in
support of your theory.
Freedom Fighter
>> Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people that
>> can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so they resort to childishly
>> attacking the person that holds the opinion.
>>
>> Pathetic.
>
> Parroting the same tired mantra in defense of a ridiculous assertation
> demonstrates the lack of the critical faculty necessary for discerning
> between plausible and fantasy. It also lacks creativity. Oh, one more
> thing :)~
The "mantra" is true, and it definitely applies to you based on your earlier
statements.
You said NOTHING to discredit the theory in question, you only attacked the
person asserting it.
TRUTH
news:yOCdnfF2K5R...@comcast.com:
I have already explained why he's not supported by BYU. They are afraid
for their lives. If you can't understand that as a realistic reason,
given the situation, then you are in denial.
Being an explosives expert or a structural engineer is not necessary.
Jones is more than qualified to detemine in the government's version of
the collapses defies physics.
Besides, an explosives expert already spoke.
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
search for "Van Romero"
He recanted. I wonder why?
> David R. Griffin is a fundamentalist theologian. He is also not
> educated in controlled demolitions or as a structural steel engineer.
> I saw his rambling, disconnected discussion on C-SPAN. It was peppered
> with religious references and occasional laughter from the audience.
> In short, no one takes these people seriously.
You comments are inaccurate and full of red herrings. Not to mention out
right lies. You are obviously going to do everything to avoid the truth.
Dr Griffin is a very well respected Professor of Emeritus. Griffin has
written two 9/11 books, and countless other non 9/11 books. Your comments
are very rude.
>> Your comments about his religious affiliations are wrong. So, yes, it
>> does change what you said.
>
> What specifically? Just saying its changed doesn't make it so.
You said something about "God's Kingdom". As you know by now, that is not
SteVen Jones. Yut jumped to conclusions from your google search without
checking.
You say "Just saying its changed doesn't make it so." You should not need
to me to spell everything out for you.
>
>> If you can't see how people would be afraid for their lives in a
>> situation like this, then you're obviously not ready to understand.
>
> What are you suggesting here, a cabal of evil-doers? The men in black?
> Who are they in danger from? Your contentions are as groundless and
> convoluted as Jones's paper.
You are assuming everything is peaches and cream, for which it is not. If
9/11 was an inside job, isn't it obvious via simple common sense that
people would be afraid of being killed for speaking up? Does that make
sense to you? I want you to answer this question and explain yourself.
>> ...to find answers. However, it is a way to hide behind your reality
>> shield and keep your head in the sand. A pity. You should consider
>> avoiding such immature comments and instead look at evidence with a
>> clear head.
>
> Yes, I shield myself with reality, I find it is much better than the
> alternative. Specifically, which immature comments are you referring
> to?
The ones that you conveniently snipped out.
>
>> Jones' paper is based on scientific laws and logical reasoning.
>
> Which laws? Which form of logical reasoning? Deductive? Inductive? Be
> specific.
I'm not a physicist. Professor Jones is. Read his paper and answer your
own questions.
>
>> Jones is
>> a tenured PhD physics professor with 20 years experience.
>
> So he can't be wrong then? He is not educated in controlled
> demolitions or as a structural steel engineer.
You are assuming he's wrong because you don't want to admit the
unthinkable to yourself.
Why don't you say that perhaps the government's version is wrong?
Afterall there's no proof.
>> His paper will be featured in a book published by
>> a company known for its expertise in scholastic scientific and
>> medical literature. Anyone calling his theories silly is not thinking
>> clearly.
>
> It has been demonstrated to you that this is a specious reference:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism/browse_thread/thread/
> 490d825fbc2e10d6/
> c6360961b069897c?lnk=st&q=&rnum=30#c6360961b069897c
I'm not wasting my time reading all that.
>
> This publication purportedly be a political, economic discussion, not
> a scientific dissertation extolling the finer points of your
> conspiracy theory.
I already explained that the publication is not scientific. No reason to
repeat it. The alternate 9/11 theory has a lot more evidence than the
official theory. The offical government version is nothing more than a
conspiracy theory, since all their evidence is easily debunkable and
proven to be nothing but lies.
>
> I have repeatedly called for commentary from industry professionals to
> support this fledgling theory. There are abundant structural steel
> engineers and controlled demolition experts who have publicly
> challenged your series of events. Not a single qualified industry
> professional has come forward in support of your theory.
>
Inaccurate and untrue, red herrings. Where are the engineers who
publically challenged Jones' paper? No experts have debunked Professor
Jones' paper. Not one.
Stop calling the alternate theory, MY theory. Hundreds of thousands,
perhaps millions, of Americans know about it and accept it. And this
includes the entire NYPD and FDNY. I live in NY. I KNOW.
And btw, I knew about this way before Dr Jones' paper. It was just
obvious common sense for me just by looking at the evidence which
obviously you did not do.
RicodJour
>
> >> Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people that
> >> can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so they resort to childishly
> >> attacking the person that holds the opinion.
> >>
> >> Pathetic.
> >
> > Parroting the same tired mantra in defense of a ridiculous assertation
> > demonstrates the lack of the critical faculty necessary for discerning
> > between plausible and fantasy. It also lacks creativity. Oh, one more
> > thing :)~
>
> The "mantra" is true, and it definitely applies to you based on your earlier
> statements.
> You said NOTHING to discredit the theory in question, you only attacked the
> person asserting it.
Interesting theory about your mantra. Tell me how this fits with your
theory: I don't see any reason to treat someone respectfully who has
repeatedly shown themselves to be an idjit. I don't mind poking you in
the eye on a newsgroup and I'd probably do the same thing in person.
You're not consequential enough to warrant anything more than a poke in
either locale.
I addressed every one of the conspiracy/controlled demolition theory
points in an earlier thread. My post was totally ignored by you and
your asspony - never got a reply, never got mentioned. If you pride
yourself on keeping an open mind, then why not address the glaring
holes that I pointed out?
Sometimes I feel obligated to point out errors in newgroup posts and
replies. Some people don't have the background to separate the wheat
from the chaff - anything that sounds plausible becomes gospel (oops,
sorry, I forgot you're the religion hater), becomes definitive in their
mind. It's not right to let the unsuspecting go off half cocked,
relying on sketchy information.
Your theory, and information, and even you for espousing it, are
sketchy. I just point that out...and have a little fun poking you in
the eye.
Now scamper off and try not to get in trouble.
R
TRUTH
news:du9hhk$h9o$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu:
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> You are pretty much out of your mind. First, Professor Jones is not a
>> reverend, he is a 20 year physics professor in a major university.
>> Second, he has not been "discredited and alienated by his own
>> colleague", as you have said. For you to even assume such nonsense
>> shows you are totally ignorant of the facts.
>>
>>
>> Professor Jones' paper is based on science. It will be included in a
>> book that will be published by Elsevier, the largest publisher of
>> scientific and medical literature in the world.
>>
>> Also to be included, is Dr David Ray Griffin's paper. Dr Griffin is a
>> very well respected Professor of Emeritus.
>
> The entire architecture school, building construction school, and as
> many from the civil engineering department as I've been able to ask at
> Virginia Tech all laugh at the idea. You've got two wingnut
> professors, I've got an entire school of good ones. This is at an
> actual technical school, not a liberal arts school with a physics
> department.
Well, this is just more evidence for my side. Your technical school
"laughs", and you call them "two wingnut professors". While the truth is
simply your inability to accept that 9/11 might have been an inside job.
You act childish and call these respected professionals names. That's
just your way of denying the evidence. Why don't you ask the professors
at that little tech school of yours to debunk Jones' paper? If they do,
please post it here. I'd like a good laugh.
Not one professional has debunked his paper. I wonder why that is? Jones
is a tenured physics professor with 20 years experience. Certainly, if
his paper was debunkable, it would have been done at this point.
>
> However, Jim was off about one thing, Brother Jones is not a Reverend
> - the LDS church does not have such a position. However, he is likely
> a priest and an elder.
>
>
>
Which makes him even more trustworthy
TRUTH
news:E04Of.496990$qk4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
That's right FF. They know they're backed into a corner and have no other
defense
TRUTH
news:1141443964....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Perfect example of one in denial
RicodJour
> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote in
> >
> > However, Jim was off about one thing, Brother Jones is not a Reverend
> > - the LDS church does not have such a position. However, he is likely
> > a priest and an elder.
>
Excellent!!! Thanks so much. I really needed a laugh and you gave me
a great one.
BTW, I wonder what FooFighter thinks of your assertion re: religious
trustworthiness. Remember to play nice, boys, otherwise no more XBox!
And I mean it this time!!!!
R
P. Fritz
P. Fritz
"sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:du9hhk$h9o$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
That will not matter to the conspiracy theorist nutcases posting as "truth"
and "freedom" Like any conspiracy theory, they rely on ignoring simple
facts while circulating half truths and lies as "fact" They will discount
true experts while calling their nutcase associates the only truly credible
authorities. And they will never understand why people laugh at them.
Matt Barrow
"P. Fritz" <paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet> wrote in message
news:120m5gc...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Pot - Kettle
Freudian Projection
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection or
http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/projection.htm
The mental midget need sto understand the difference between REAL evidence
and whimsy.
This might help: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Freedom Fighter
> Freedom Fighter wrote:
>> "RicodJour" <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
>> > > Freedom Fighter wrote:
>>
>> >> Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people
>> >> that
>> >> can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so they resort to
>> >> childishly
>> >> attacking the person that holds the opinion.
>> >>
>> >> Pathetic.
>> >
>> > Parroting the same tired mantra in defense of a ridiculous assertation
>> > demonstrates the lack of the critical faculty necessary for discerning
>> > between plausible and fantasy. It also lacks creativity. Oh, one more
>> > thing :)~
>>
>> The "mantra" is true, and it definitely applies to you based on your
>> earlier
>> statements.
>> You said NOTHING to discredit the theory in question, you only attacked
>> the
>> person asserting it.
>
> Interesting theory about your mantra. Tell me how this fits with your
> theory: I don't see any reason to treat someone respectfully who has
> repeatedly shown themselves to be an idjit.
Can you see that this is YOUR opinion, not necessarily a consensus?
> I don't mind poking you in
> the eye on a newsgroup and I'd probably do the same thing in person.
I doubt it, but that's just what I would expect from a fascist sympathizer.
When reason fails, resort to violence!
> You're not consequential enough to warrant anything more than a poke in
> either locale.
>
> I addressed every one of the conspiracy/controlled demolition theory
> points in an earlier thread. My post was totally ignored by you and
> your asspony - never got a reply, never got mentioned. If you pride
> yourself on keeping an open mind, then why not address the glaring
> holes that I pointed out?
I did not see any such post. Repost it, but if you are using only the
"official" 9/11 explanation propaganda to make your point, it will not be
taken too seriously.
> Sometimes I feel obligated to point out errors in newgroup posts and
> replies. Some people don't have the background to separate the wheat
> from the chaff - anything that sounds plausible becomes gospel (oops,
> sorry, I forgot you're the religion hater), becomes definitive in their
> mind. It's not right to let the unsuspecting go off half cocked,
> relying on sketchy information.
>
> Your theory, and information, and even you for espousing it, are
> sketchy. I just point that out...and have a little fun poking you in
> the eye.
>
> Now scamper off and try not to get in trouble.
You call me a troll, then exhibit "having fun poking you in the eye."
Perhaps you keep your eyes closed to protect you from being poked in the
brain by the truth?
Your arrogant condescention, as with your aggression and attacks, do
absolutely nothing to dicredit my documented presentation of evidence that
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB - and HERE IS THE PROOF:
The deliberate demolition by explosives of WTC building 7, just
hours after the collapse of the twin towers, is a matter of record,
not one requiring proof. The planes that struck the towers did not
structurally damage building 7. No steel frame building has EVER
collapsed from even a serious fire, and the fires in building 7
were limited, not extensive. Videos show the collapse began with
the roof penthouse, though the fires were only on a few of the
lower floors.
See documentation at http://www.wtc7.net/
and http://www.prisonplanet.com/012004watson.html
Strangely, the 9/11 Commission's final report IGNORED building 7
entirely!
Explosive demolitions take considerable time to set up (see
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm). The
explosives could not possibly have been properly placed around the
structural supports and wired for detonation in building 7 in the
few hours between the attacks and that building's collapse. Yet
that collapse was clearly a professionally executed demolition by
explosives.
Therefore -
THE DEMOLITION EXPLOSIVES IN BUILDING 7 WERE PUT IN
PLACE PRIOR TO THE PLANES IMPACTING THE TWIN TOWERS!
Therefore -
The 9/11 attacks were KNOWN OF IN ADVANCE, and DELIBERATELY
ALLOWED TO OCCUR! It was intended beforehand that building 7 and
the twin towers all be completely destroyed, KILLING THE THOUSANDS
OF PEOPLE REMAINING IN THEM!
The above documented facts alone do not rigorously prove that
previously placed explosives likewise brought down the twin towers,
but see the following:
A paper published by Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics, Brigham
Young University, concludes that prepositioned demolition
explosives brought down all three collapsed WTC buildings, not the
plane impacts or fires. Photos, audio, and video clips accompany
this report. You can see this at
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Further evidence can be found at:
http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm
This author has a master's degree in Engineering from Stanford
University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of
Oregon.
Two unexplained "spikes" in seismic records indicate huge bursts of
energy shook the ground beneath the twin towers immediately prior
to their collapse.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic.html
In addition, the total failure of our sophisticated NORAD aerospace
defense system to intercept even one of the four "hijacked" jets in
subsonic flight for hours, towards known terrorist targets, can
only be explained as deliberate.
Many deniers of these unprecedented crimes of mass murder are
simply psychologically incapable of considering them possible.
Misled by the corporate/government-controlled media, deceived by an
elaborate cover-up, and indoctrinated with a perverted sense of
"patriotism," they are under the delusion that only barbaric
foreign terrorists could commit such inhuman atrocities. But
foreign terrorists could not have planted demolition explosives in
advance. HOMELAND TERRORISTS had to do that! The implications of
this are literally unthinkable to many, which is just what the evil
perpetrators of this crime against humanity are counting on.
Given the shock and horror, the massive death and destruction of
these events, irrational denial is understandable. History reveals
despicable acts of terror by unscrupulous powers in the USSR,
Germany, China, and elsewhere. Why would this evil side of human
nature not surface here in America?
Overcoming denial and exposing the truth is the only hope for
saving us from a fascist regime of vicious killers as bad as the
Nazis ever were. Should we wait to find out if they can be even
worse?
CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS AND THE SENATE.
DEMAND A NEW AND INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THIS
CRIME OF THE CENTURY!
More 9/11 documentation:
http://www.st911.org/
http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/
http://911busters.com/911-Commission.html
http://www.septembereleventh.org/audio.php
http://911busters.com/SanFran04/index.html
http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=gallery
http://www.reopen911.org/
http://www.911truth.org/
http://www.911truthseekers.org/
http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/news/
http://www.gnn.tv/
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
http://www.911studies.com/index.html
http://www.septembereleventh.org/index.php
http://infowars.com/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
http://www.mujca.com/index.htm
http://proliberty.com/observer/20051213.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
http://911review.com/
http://guardian.250free.com/wtc/dust-cloud.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html
P. Fritz
"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in message
news:va3Pf.20674$J02....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>Yet
> that collapse was clearly a professionally executed demolition by
> explosives.
False Assumption
>
> Therefore -
>
Everything else in your wacko conspiracy theory fails the test.
Freedom Fighter
news:8fmdnWbAmIedQprZ...@comcast.com...
< snip >
> During an interview on the talk show hosted by Tucker Carlson from MSNBC,
> Carlson suggested Jones leave the country: 'If you really believe the U.S.
> government killed 3000 of its own citizens for no reason and lied about it
> and
> invaded Afghanistan as a result of something it did, you ought to leave
> the
> country... because that's so terrible... so evil, that your tax dollars go
> in to
> support it make you complicit in it... if you really believe that, you
> ought to
> leave'.
There are many precedents in history illustrating such abominably evil
conduct on the part of fascistic governments - as was the Third Reich. What
makes you think this dark side of human nature could not manifest itself in
America? It is denial to a delusory degree to insist that it could not!
> Jones response to this controversy was that it was a Bush administration
> conspiracy to silence his lone voice of reason.
Probably true. The academic world is often dependent on government funding,
and they fear alienating the iron fists that feed them. Thus they distance
themselves from Jones and others that dare to speak their minds.
P. Fritz
The beauty of kook consiracy theories.......flaws in the theory just become
part of the kook conspiracy.
>
>
RicodJour
> > points in an earlier thread. My post was totally ignored by you and
> > your asspony - never got a reply, never got mentioned. If you pride
> > yourself on keeping an open mind, then why not address the glaring
> > holes that I pointed out?
>
> I did not see any such post. Repost it, but if you are using only the
> "official" 9/11 explanation propaganda to make your point, it will not be
> taken too seriously.
I don't do "official", I do "rational". Here's what I wrote. You and
Bucky the Boy Wonder ignored it for your convenience. My request at
the end, to point out the impossibilites or even implausabilities,
still stands
From: "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.building.construction
Subject: Re: More 9/11 WTC Controlled Demolition Evidence: SEISMIC
SPIKES
Date: 12 Jan 2006 18:26:05 -0800
Is it really necessary to cross post this to all of those newsgroups?
I don't think so. I deleted the ones that I don't frequent and just
this one post will have to suffice.
Erik Kline wrote:
> Pipedown, thank you for your thoughtful post. I think that this is what
> people (including myself) who have posted to the alt.building.engineering
> group were hoping for. I'm an engineer myself, but in computers. For myself,
> I wanted to alert structural engineers to the issues since engineers can be
> some of the most stubborn people in the world when dealing with technical
> issues. They tend to make up their own minds on technical issues and are
> resistant to being swayed by rhetoric to change a technical view.
You wanted to alert structural engineers... How often does your
dentist alert you to "breaking news" in computer engineering? Not
often, I'd gather. If he does share information with you, it's going
to be something you've known about for ages, or something that you can
quickly see is just wrong. You can trust me that every structural
engineer on the planet did plenty of reading on the WTC failures.
> When I first heard about the theory that explosives brought the WTC
> buildings down, I thought it was crazy. It wasn't until Dr. Jones from BYU
> wrote his paper that I looked at the proposition seriously.
>
> You make some good points that the WTC collapse is unprecedented and thus
> will exhibit unexpected anomolies. However, these anomalies will never
> violate the laws of physics. Concrete does not turn to dust in midair
> without a huge energy input. Steel cannot be melted into pools of liquid
> when it falls from a height. Steel cannot be melted by an open jet fuel
> fire, no matter how long the fire lasts.
Other than the concrete and steel, you feel the buildings were empty?
You must, as those are the only two things you mention in any of your
posts. This is one of those things where you (the dentist) are telling
me something that I can immediately dismiss as wrong.
> The 911 Commission, FEMA, and NIST have all stated that the Twin Towers were
> felled by fires which heated the structural steel to the point that it
> failed. They all agree that the plane impact was not enough to significantly
> weaken the buildings. However, other steel framed buildings had much more
> extensive fires and the buildings did not fail. Controlled demolition HAS
> caused many buildings to fall down, and in a very similar manner to which
> the WTC buildings fell.
>
> My questions are:
> 1. What melted the steel into puddles, still molten 3 weeks later?
I'd imagine heat and pressure in some combination, but as there haven't
been any similar failures to establish a precedent, I can't say for
sure.
> 2. What caused the concrete to turn to fine dust in midair?
Again with the concrete. You do realize that drywall is one of the
most common building materials in construction and notorious for
producing huge amounts of very fine dust, right? Everyone is aware of
it, so why are you ignoring it? Other materials that created the large
amount of dust include fireproofing and ceiling tile in enormous
quantities.
> 3. Why did most of the beams and columns fell in sections of 30' to 40' in
> length?
>From what I've read, the steel failed at or near the bolted
connections. This is not an unusual occurrence.
> 4. Why did the buildings fall at near the rate of freefall?
Did you ever witness a fight where someone delivered a haymaker and the
announcer says something about the vanquised opponent like, "He went
down like a ton of bricks?" How slowly do you feel the building should
have fallen?
> 5. Why do photographic records show "demolition waves" occurring just ahead
> of the collapsing floors?
Because structural transmission of sound, a common problem in
acoustics, can also be modeled as transmission of vibrations and force.
> 6. Why did firemen report hearing sequences of explosions as the buildings
> collapsed?
Ever been on a ladder or plank that cracked? Sometimes it can sound
like a gunshot. Now multiply that by thousands of times. Things make
noise when they fail.
> 7. Why did seismological events occur immediately prior to collapse?
See structural transmission of sound and force above.
> 8. Why did the buildings collapse virtually straight down into their own
> "footprints"?
I'd imagine it had to do with the configuration of the building, the
location of impact, and a bunch of other factors. There's never been a
building like the WTC, the height and structural system was quite
unusual. To expect it to fail like another building is illogical.
> 9. Why did the buildings collapse so completely, leaving virtually no steel
> support columns standing?
Because of millions of tons dropping on top of them. This isn't a Road
Runner cartoon.
> These are all anomalies if you accept that plane collision and subsequent
> fire destroyed the buildings. If you think that controlled demolition
> destroyed the buildings, then they aren't anomalies at all. They're expected
> characteristics of controlled demolition.
They are not anomalies, except for the main one, the unusual height and
structure of the building. Since they aren't anomalies, why assume
that an army of demolition experts worked their way through the
building, weakening the structure with cutting torches (you've never
been near one, have you?) and planting explosives, all connected by
miles of det-wire, and all of this in perfect secrecy and while the
building was occupied?
> Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and
> satisfies ALL the evidence is most probably correct. The simplest suggestion
> here, given the physical evidence, is that the buildings were blown up.
Read that last sentence I wrote above, and apply Occam's razor to that.
> If in your failure analysis work, someones comes up with a melted metal
> assembly and states that it failed because it was dropped from a tall
> building, you would tell them that metal doesn't melt when dropped. It might
> break, it would probably bend, but it doesn't melt. It doesn't matter who
> tells you that it melted because it was dropped. If your Mother told you
> that it melted after being dropped, you still wouldn't believe her. It
> violates the laws of physics.
It wasn't "dropped" in a vacuum, or by itself. There were other forces
acting on it.
You ignore what is inconvenient to your theory. An engineer, of any
type, should know better.
Now, it's your turn. Please point out where any of the things I listed
above is wrong. Scratch that, omit wrong and insert implausible - I
won't hold you to too high of a standard as you're an amateur.
R
That's what I wrote. That's what you ignored. Now, tell me where and
why I'm wrong.
R
Freedom Fighter
> Freedom Fighter wrote:
>> "RicodJour" <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > I addressed every one of the conspiracy/controlled demolition theory
>> > points in an earlier thread. My post was totally ignored by you and
>> > your asspony - never got a reply, never got mentioned. If you pride
>> > yourself on keeping an open mind, then why not address the glaring
>> > holes that I pointed out?
>>
>> I did not see any such post. Repost it, but if you are using only the
>> "official" 9/11 explanation propaganda to make your point, it will not be
>> taken too seriously.
>
> I don't do "official", I do "rational". Here's what I wrote. You and
> Bucky the Boy Wonder ignored it for your convenience. My request at
> the end, to point out the impossibilites or even implausabilities,
> still stands
"Bucky the Boy Wonder" (sic) certainly does loads for your objectivity!
> From: "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.building.construction
> Subject: Re: More 9/11 WTC Controlled Demolition Evidence: SEISMIC
> SPIKES
> Date: 12 Jan 2006 18:26:05 -0800
>
> Erik Kline wrote:
>> Pipedown, thank you for your thoughtful post. I think that this is what
>> people (including myself) who have posted to the alt.building.engineering
>> group were hoping for. I'm an engineer myself, but in computers. For
>> myself,
>> I wanted to alert structural engineers to the issues since engineers can
>> be
>> some of the most stubborn people in the world when dealing with technical
>> issues. They tend to make up their own minds on technical issues and are
>> resistant to being swayed by rhetoric to change a technical view.
And I too am an engineer, in electronics. Having studied physics, am I not
just as qualified to judge these matters as is a computer engineer?
> You wanted to alert structural engineers... How often does your
> dentist alert you to "breaking news" in computer engineering? Not
> often, I'd gather. If he does share information with you, it's going
> to be something you've known about for ages, or something that you can
> quickly see is just wrong. You can trust me that every structural
> engineer on the planet did plenty of reading on the WTC failures.
Reading of works authored by, directly or indirectly, the perpetrators or
sympathizers therewith? Certainly not all fall under this category, as
denial and rationalization thereof is a common consequence of incidents of
horror and shock.
>> When I first heard about the theory that explosives brought the WTC
>> buildings down, I thought it was crazy. It wasn't until Dr. Jones from
>> BYU
>> wrote his paper that I looked at the proposition seriously.
>>
>> You make some good points that the WTC collapse is unprecedented and thus
>> will exhibit unexpected anomolies. However, these anomalies will never
>> violate the laws of physics. Concrete does not turn to dust in midair
>> without a huge energy input. Steel cannot be melted into pools of liquid
>> when it falls from a height. Steel cannot be melted by an open jet fuel
>> fire, no matter how long the fire lasts.
>
> Other than the concrete and steel, you feel the buildings were empty?
> You must, as those are the only two things you mention in any of your
> posts. This is one of those things where you (the dentist) are telling
> me something that I can immediately dismiss as wrong.
Other than the concrete and steel? The concrete and steel accounted for
perhaps 95% of the total weight. Most of the buildings' contents was AIR.
>> The 911 Commission, FEMA, and NIST have all stated that the Twin Towers
>> were
>> felled by fires which heated the structural steel to the point that it
>> failed. They all agree that the plane impact was not enough to
>> significantly
>> weaken the buildings. However, other steel framed buildings had much more
>> extensive fires and the buildings did not fail. Controlled demolition HAS
>> caused many buildings to fall down, and in a very similar manner to which
>> the WTC buildings fell.
>>
>> My questions are:
>> 1. What melted the steel into puddles, still molten 3 weeks later?
>
> I'd imagine heat and pressure in some combination, but as there haven't
> been any similar failures to establish a precedent, I can't say for
> sure.
The temperature of MOLTEN steel, and there was alot of it, is far higher
than could have resulted from the fires and energy of collapse. No problem
for explosives, however.
>> 2. What caused the concrete to turn to fine dust in midair?
>
> Again with the concrete. You do realize that drywall is one of the
> most common building materials in construction and notorious for
> producing huge amounts of very fine dust, right? Everyone is aware of
> it, so why are you ignoring it? Other materials that created the large
> amount of dust include fireproofing and ceiling tile in enormous
> quantities.
But WHERE DID THE CONCRETE GO? It was reduced to dust, which your above
statement does not account for. There was far more concrete than drywall,
tile, etc. - what happened to it all?
>> 3. Why did most of the beams and columns fell in sections of 30' to 40'
>> in
>> length?
>
>>From what I've read, the steel failed at or near the bolted
> connections. This is not an unusual occurrence.
Why do you blindly accept "what I read" without questioning the
discrepancies in it? Because it came for an "official" source?
Planned explosive demolitions are set up so that the broken steel segments
will be of the right size to fit the trucks that will carry them away. How
convenient that the "bolted connections" were coincidentally spaced just
so -
>> 4. Why did the buildings fall at near the rate of freefall?
>
> Did you ever witness a fight where someone delivered a haymaker and the
> announcer says something about the vanquised opponent like, "He went
> down like a ton of bricks?" How slowly do you feel the building should
> have fallen?
Do you know the definition of INERTIA?
The INERTIA of the massive floor below the one collapsing above it prevents
an overall collapse at free fall speed.
>> 5. Why do photographic records show "demolition waves" occurring just
>> ahead
>> of the collapsing floors?
>
> Because structural transmission of sound, a common problem in
> acoustics, can also be modeled as transmission of vibrations and force.
Have you seen the pictures showing the explosive bursts from the sides of
the building, progressing down several floors BELOW the place at which the
collapse was occurring?
>> 6. Why did firemen report hearing sequences of explosions as the
>> buildings
>> collapsed?
>
> Ever been on a ladder or plank that cracked? Sometimes it can sound
> like a gunshot. Now multiply that by thousands of times. Things make
> noise when they fail.
Sorry, but they said they heard EXPLOSIONS, and firemen KNOW explosions when
they hear them!
>> 7. Why did seismological events occur immediately prior to collapse?
>
> See structural transmission of sound and force above.
PRIOR TO the collapses??
>> 8. Why did the buildings collapse virtually straight down into their own
>> "footprints"?
>
> I'd imagine it had to do with the configuration of the building, the
> location of impact, and a bunch of other factors. There's never been a
> building like the WTC, the height and structural system was quite
> unusual. To expect it to fail like another building is illogical.
That it fell at all from the fire is pretty illogical.
>> 9. Why did the buildings collapse so completely, leaving virtually no
>> steel
>> support columns standing?
>
> Because of millions of tons dropping on top of them. This isn't a Road
> Runner cartoon.
>
>> These are all anomalies if you accept that plane collision and subsequent
>> fire destroyed the buildings. If you think that controlled demolition
>> destroyed the buildings, then they aren't anomalies at all. They're
>> expected
>> characteristics of controlled demolition.
Absolutely.
> They are not anomalies, except for the main one, the unusual height and
> structure of the building. Since they aren't anomalies, why assume
> that an army of demolition experts worked their way through the
> building, weakening the structure with cutting torches (you've never
> been near one, have you?) and planting explosives, all connected by
> miles of det-wire, and all of this in perfect secrecy and while the
> building was occupied?
Sorry, but there ARE sufficient anomalies to justify a new and independent
investigation. If you are correct, why object to this?
>> Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and
>> satisfies ALL the evidence is most probably correct. The simplest
>> suggestion
>> here, given the physical evidence, is that the buildings were blown up.
>
> Read that last sentence I wrote above, and apply Occam's razor to that.
>
>> If in your failure analysis work, someones comes up with a melted metal
>> assembly and states that it failed because it was dropped from a tall
>> building, you would tell them that metal doesn't melt when dropped. It
>> might
>> break, it would probably bend, but it doesn't melt. It doesn't matter who
>> tells you that it melted because it was dropped. If your Mother told you
>> that it melted after being dropped, you still wouldn't believe her. It
>> violates the laws of physics.
>
> It wasn't "dropped" in a vacuum, or by itself. There were other forces
> acting on it.
Insufficient to generate a vast pool of molten steel at temperatures far
above that of the fires they claim caused the collapse.
> You ignore what is inconvenient to your theory. An engineer, of any
> type, should know better.
>
> Now, it's your turn. Please point out where any of the things I listed
> above is wrong. Scratch that, omit wrong and insert implausible - I
> won't hold you to too high of a standard as you're an amateur.
>
> R
>
> That's what I wrote. That's what you ignored. Now, tell me where and
> why I'm wrong.
>
> R
Thanks for the repost.
See my comments above.
I do not have a 100% certainty that the theory of controlled demolition is
correct - perhaps 95%. More than sufficient however to believe that a new
and independent investigation is called for. If I am wrong, why not allow
such an investigation to determine that?