Physics Professor Thinks the WTCs Were Cases of Controlled Demolition

[spooked911]

This is a letter he wrote to his academic colleagues and that he e-mailed to me. He is interested in feedback on it.

"Dear colleagues:


I hope you have taken the minute required to actually look at the fall of WTC 7:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

http://tinyurl.com/7drxn


To summarize from previous emails, the reasons I believe WTC collapses to be due to controlled demolition are:

1. My own analysis of the "pancaking" floors model (the FEMA/NIST model) combined with Conservation of Momentum considerations gives a much longer time for the fall (over 10 seconds) than that which was actually observed for WTC-7 (about 6.3 seconds, just over the free-fall time of 6.0 seconds). I find no evidence in their reports that government researchers (FEMA, NIST, 9-11 Commission) included Conservation of Momentum in their analyses.

2. The fact that WTC-7 fell down symmetrically, onto its own footprint very neatly, even though fires were just observed on one side of the building. A symmetrical collapse, as observed, requires the simultaneous "pulling" of support beams. By my count, there were 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns in WTC-7. Heat transport considerations for steel beams heated by fire suggest that failure of even a few columns at the same time is very small. Adding in the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("law of increasing entropy") leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 was observed. (If you still haven't gone to the links above to see the actual collapse for yourself, please go there now.)

Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even deal with the collapse of WTC-7. This is a striking omission of highly relevant data.

3.Squibs (horizontal puffs of smoke and debris) are observed emerging from WTC-7, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (SEE: http://tinyurl.com/7drxn) Yet the floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos, so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. I have personally examined many building demolitions based on on-line videos, and the presence of such squibs firing in rapid sequence as observed is prima facie evidence for the use of pre-positioned explosives inside the building.

4. The pulverization of concrete to powder and the horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of yards, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, requires much more energy than is available from gravitational potential energy alone. Explosives will give the observed features. Other scientists have provided quantitative analysis of the observed pulverizations, and I can provide references if you wish. Here we are appealing to the violation of Conservation of Energy inherent in the "official" pancaking-floors theory-- a horrendous violation, forbidden by principles of Physics. (What is going on for the FEMA/NIST researchers to make such striking errors/omissions?)

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.

6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.


7. I understand that models of the steel-frame WTC buildings at Underwriters Laboratories subjected to intense fires did NOT collapse. And no steel-frame buildings before or after 9/11/2001 have collapsed due to fire. Thus, the "official" fire-pancaking model fails the scientific test of REPRODUCIBILITY. (Earthquake- caused collapses have occured, but there were no major earthquakes in NYC on that day. And buildings which have collapsed due to earthquakes collapse asymmetrically, as expected -- not like the nearly straight-down collapse of WTC 7 to a small rubble pile!)


8. Explosions -- multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence -- were heard and reported by numerous observers in (and near) the WTC buildings, consistent with explosive demolition. Some of the firemen who reported explosions barely escaped with their lives.

Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)

I have performed other analyses regarding the WTC collapses on 9-11-01 which may be of interest --let me know if you're interested. The matter is highly interesting to me as a physicist -- and as a citizen of the United States. I conclude that the evidence for pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling.

Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU"


Note: If you do not believe THIS guy, I suspect you're never going to believe anyone about this topic. :)

[AZCat]

1. Are you sure someone isn't masquerading as the professor?

We could send him an email and ask, since it's available on his homepage at BYU.

While you're there you might want to peruse his c.v., but don't miss this fascinating little tidbit down at the bottom (under research interests):
Evidence for Christ's Visit in America


Hmmm...

[carlvs]

2. I agree

Considering how often I have the CTers here attempt to twist science to suit their fantasies, I wouldn't put forgery past them.

I mean, a physicist equating the effect of one concrete block falling onto another with the drop of the upper stories of the WTC towers (which I have heard each weighed around 100,000 TONS) onto the lower undamaged part of both buildings - it just smells rotten... :puke:

[spooked911]

6. Do you think 100,000 tons dropped onto just one section of floor

the size of one brick? Or do you think maybe the weight was spread around a little. Besides, you don't know how exactly he set up the expt-- he says he dropped BRICKS on to other bricks. Perhaps he mimicked the relative part of the weight of the upper building dropping on that particular section of brick.

[spooked911]

3. He's real. This is not a forgery. Go ahead and e-mail him. He wants

comments.

Yes, he is a Mormon (you know, the Church of Latter Day Saints, who say that Christ visited the Americas). What do you expect for BYU?

Geesh.

[jessicazi]

50. It is actually the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

Saints. Not a big deal, except I think there is a splinter group called the Church of Latter Day Saints, and their beliefs are different then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[philb]

9. Are you suggesting you have evidence that he didn't visit America

I'd be interested in that. I'm not a Morman but was given some of their info and I suspect he has more support for his case than you do for yours. Though thats not relevant to this issue. Are you suggesting that anyone who believes in a religion is likely not a good scientist?

[AZCat]

11. Any lack of evidence on my part...

in no way validates his evidence.

I am suggesting that a man who is a proponent of the "Jesus visited America" theory should have his scientific theories scrutinized rather than accepted blindly on the basis of his credentials.

[LARED]

13. I tried to email the Professor to see if

he was willing to discuss some criticisms and the Email will not go through. When I checked it out on an email address checker all I got was this message.

Getting MX record for mailto (from local DNS server, may be cached)... Received an NXDOMAIN response.

This means that the mailto domain does not exist! No mail can be sent to it.

Then when I plugged the web address into this link http://whois.educause.net/index.asp A specific look-up for ".edu" domains, I got this message

This Registry database contains ONLY .EDU domains.
The data in the EDUCAUSE Whois database is provided
by EDUCAUSE for information purposes in order to
assist in the process of obtaining information about
or related to .edu domain registration records.

The EDUCAUSE Whois database is authoritative for the
.EDU domain.

A Web interface for the .EDU EDUCAUSE Whois Server is
available at: http://whois.educause.net

By submitting a Whois query, you agree that this information
will not be used to allow, enable, or otherwise support
the transmission of unsolicited commercial advertising or
solicitations via e-mail.

You may use "%" as a wildcard in your search. For further
information regarding the use of this WHOIS server, please
type: help

--------------------------

No Match

The bottom line seems to be someone is trying a scam.

[AZCat]

14. Fascinating. More tidbits tantalize...

The email address given when I go to the http://www.physics.byu.edu/directory.aspx?personID=36">BYU Faculty and Staff Directory entry for Dr. Jones is "[e-mail]" while the email address given on the web page supposedly listing his c.v. is "[e-mail]".

The c.v. web page url is www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/bergeson/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm and the last person to edit the page (at the bottom) is a "Scott D. Bergeson".


Hmm...

[LARED]

15. Yep, I found the other email shortly after I posted my comment

I emailed him at the new email and it went right through. It should be interesting to see what happens.

[AZCat]

16. Yes it will.

If it truly is the professor who wrote the letter above, maybe he would be kind enough to send you his calculations. Perhaps we could then see what assumptions he made in his model.

[funflower]

48. I found "[e-mail]." He's a professor of physics and

astronomy. I have no idea whether he actually authored this piece.

Telephone number in the online faculty directory is 801-422-2749.

[Prof Jones]

27. Seminar on WTC-7 collapse and other 9-11 anomalies

Yes, I'm really a Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University. No, I'm not a Republican (grin). While my analyses are not yet published, I will be presenting a public seminar on my research next week. Here is the email sent out at BYU, to the Physics Faculty:

Dear Colleagues,

Here I go sticking my neck out again. A few other scientists and I have been analyzing the remarkable collapse of World Trade Center 7. If you haven't seen it (probably most of you haven't, since it collapsed in the evening of 9-11-01 with very little media coverage then or since), please take a moment to look at the short clips here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html


I will show and analyze this and other videos and data regarding this puzzling skyscraper collapse at a brown-bag-style seminar on Thursday, Sept. 22, 2005 in C-215 Eyring Science Center at 3 pm. Please join in for a Power Point presentation and discussion. Other 9-11 anomalies will also be considered. (Yes, there is a lot of 9-11 bunk out there too; I'll touch on this matter briefly but will emphasize the analysis of the collapse of WTC-7 and the Towers.)

Why does Building 7 collapse (a 47-story steel-beam building) over seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed on 9-11? Why does it collapse nearly straight-down and symmetrically (compare with other fallen buildings)? How fast? Are demolition squibs seen, or not? Why was molten metal found (chemists) in the basement of WTC7 after its collapse -- and in the basements of WTC 1 and 2? Was the pulverized dust from these buildings safe to breathe as government re-assurances said over and over after 9-11? (The answer to that is emphatically "no".) What is going on here?

Prof. Weyland (Physics, BYU-ID) has reviewed my analysis and writes:
"Thanks for letting me in on this. I also am intrigued by the molten metal... I respect you a great deal for the way you use physics to be helpful to society.... the physics argument is so strong and compelling."

Well, you may disagree with Prof. Weyland -- please come and observe then express your opinions. I really want to know what you think, with the kid gloves off (but no ad hominems please). This matter is too important to ignore or dismiss without consideration.

The seminar is designed primarily for faculty discussion (not students at this time) -- science and engineering faculty but others are invited as well, of course.

Yes, we question the "official" version that jet planes/fires was what brought these buildings tumbling down. Oh, remember that WTC7 was never hit by a plane... So what brought it down?

Jot that down: Thursday, 9/22/05, 3:00 pm in C-215 Eyring Science Center.

See you there,
Steven E. Jones

[pox americana]

29. Thanks and welcome to DU!

I wish I could attend the seminar! It sounds terrific.

[janedoe]

34. Welcome to DU!

Thanks for your post, as well as your demonstration of courage.

[vincent_vega_lives]

37. Nothing on WTC 1 & 2 then

Because there is plenty of speculation here about their collapse to go around.

And what is the source material for your analysis? Do you touch on the collapse of the penthouse before the total collapse, the kink in the structure?

[jessicazi]

49. I think it is genuinely Steven Jones

He references Prof. Jack Weyland, a professor at BYU-Idaho. Jack Weyland is really a professor at BYU-I.

I am Mormon, and for Mormon professors to stick their necks out on the line is a big deal. BYU and BYU-Idaho are two of the most Conservative universities in the country.

[funflower]

63. A Mormon democrat! Congratulations! Must be interesting discussions at

your family's Thanksgiving dinner table!

[spooked911]

74. Yes, I know-- it is rather astonishing

[funflower]

109. Thanks so much for posting here, Professor! Do you know of any video

of other collapsing buildings that we could look at for comparison? Also, what is the evidence that there was molten metal found in the basement of the fallen towers? Is this evidence preserved somewhere, or are there engineers or other people willing to publicly testify to its presence? Finally, after your presentation at BYU, would you mind posting your Powerpoint somewhere so those of us who live nowhere near BYU can see it?

Thank you very much again!

[Kai]

173. Don't forget to read and sign the Scholars Petition for Evidence

We, the Undersigned, endorse the following petition:
Scholars Call for Release of 9/11 Information
Target: THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


click here and sign;
http://st911.org /

[unschooler]

97. Many brilliant, otherwise logical people hold poorly supported

religious beliefs. I, for one, am not willing to write off the scientific conclusions of every scientist or engineer who believes, for example, in the Virgin Birth, although I personally find no basis for believing this actually occured.

Religious beliefs are deeply rooted and generally take hold long before a person has developed adult logical faculties. For complex reasons that have nothing to do with logic, people often have difficulty moving past their childhood religious beliefs and tend to try very hard to reconcile observable reality with those beliefs.

However, as Prof. Jones is not doing this wrt the fall of the World Trade Towers, I don't think his unsubstantiated religious views have impact on his ability to apply cold logic to the question of why the towers fell.

[Make7]

4. Who gives a fuck what he thinks?

Why doesn't someone offer him $1,000,000 to prove it?

:) Make7

[spooked911]

5. I think if you were a full professor of physics, your opinion might mean

something. As it is, I don't know what your opinion is worth.

[AZCat]

12. His doctorate looks nice, but...

It only gives weight to his words when he speaks about areas associated with that doctorate. I see nothing in his c.v. related to building science.

[stickdog]

110. That's a mind boggling take. So a full professor of physics is not

a legitimate expert on the subject of physics, if he doesn't agree with you.

Breathtaking.

[AZCat]

116. Perhaps...

you have not made the acquaintance of as many as I have. A doctorate in physics is not a carte blanche, whether or not the possessor agrees or disagrees with me.

[stickdog]

117. Neither is a civil engineer or NIST membership card.

The problem is that you "debunkers" want it both ways. The lack of so-called experts willing to publicize unpopular and potentially career-damaging 9/11 analyses is held up as some sort of de facto proof that "everybody who's anybody" is 100% copacetic with the official conspiracy theory.

But if and when anyone who meets and exceeds the traditional standards of expertise disagrees, his or her legitimacy as an expert is immediately called into question. So my question is, are we allowed to think for ourselves or are we compelled to defer to so-called experts? Because your point of view on this subject seems very conveniently flexible.

[AZCat]

120. I think you see a problem where none exists.

1. The individual in question is not an expert in a field directly related to the subject of this forum. A quick look at his c.v. and published papers shows this. Expertise in one field does not confer legitimacy to statements made about subjects outside that field, whether the "traditional standards of expertise" met or not (whatever that means).

2. No-one, especially an individual, should be deferred to when making controversial claims regardless of their qualifications. The professor has not explained how he reached his conclusions. Until I can examine his argument and determine its validity on my own his conclusions don't mean anything.

3. Why are you applying one standard to those who question the official story and another to those who support it? When I look at the NIST WTC investigation team, I see lots of people that could legitimately be called "experts" yet you reject their claims and pooh-pooh their work. Why the two standards? Oh, that's right... The people at the NIST work for the government... :eyes:

[petgoat]

127. The people at the NIST work for the government...

And in case you haven't noticed, a lot of people of conscience have been
resigning from gov't posts in the last few years because of political
interference in their work.

I agree that everyone's ideas should stand on their merits, regardless
of their credentials. Tom Eagar's status as a MIT professor certainly
doesn't make him infallible.

Given that, as someone pointed out, the physics under discussion is
just college-level kinetics, I don't see how Prof. Jones's expertise in
a different area is relevant.

[AZCat]

130. I haven't seen anyone resign from the NIST...

Of course, I might have just missed it. I don't think things are the same for the NIST as they are for some other government agencies. There is a tremendous amount of private sector scrutiny of the work accomplished by the NIST, especially the Building and Fire Research Laboratory. I think it would be difficult to influence the NIST without being caught.

The physics of the WTC failure is actually more complicated than you might think. The behavior of materials under certain conditions aren't as well understood as the engineering community would like, hence the interest in the NIST investigation. Metals in particular can behave very strangely under rapid loading, sometimes failing well below their traditional failure strengths. Combine this with the problem of modelling the complex interaction between a large number of structural members (something physics has difficulty with) and the simulation becomes more complicated yet (and can only be solved when simplified considerably).

[stickdog]

131. He's a fucking physics professor. I'd say his expertise includes

mathematically modeling physical phenomena. Wouldn't you?

No-one, especially an individual, should be deferred to when making controversial claims regardless of their qualifications. The professor has not explained how he reached his conclusions. Until I can examine his argument and determine its validity on my own his conclusions don't mean anything.

Does the same standard apply to FEMA's & NIST's laughably unsupported 9/11 speculations? Why or why not?

Why are you applying one standard to those who question the official story and another to those who support it? When I look at the NIST WTC investigation team, I see lots of people that could legitimately be called "experts" yet you reject their claims and pooh-pooh their work.

You are the one applying two standards. I haven't read this professor's full body of work concerning 9/11, and therefore I've said nothing to endorse or diminish it. I've merely been pointing out the mind-boggling hypocrisy demonstrated by many on this tread who have -- up until now -- strenuously argued that NIST's and FEMA's conclusions MUST HAVE nearly universal scientific support because no experts have managed to widely publicize their criticism of these reports (even those these folks have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so, btw).

However, I have read all the FEMA and NIST 9/11 reports and the vast majority are nothing more than pseudoscientific reverse engineered conclusions completely unsupported by even a single shred of hard, physical evidence.

[AZCat]

133. There have been professionals...

that have criticised the NIST investigation in a public forum. Just yesterday I received my September 2005 copy of "Plumbing Engineer" and, lo and behold, on page 14 I see a four page article by Richard Schulte criticising the recommendations in the June 23, 2005 draft report of the NIST investigation. He has been a regular contributor to "Plumbing Engineer" and a number of his recent articles have been about the NIST investigation.

Again, just because the professor has a doctorate in physics doesn't mean he knows anything about building science. You display a woeful lack of understanding by conflating engineering and physics.

Of course the same standard applies to the NIST investigation, or anyone else who investigates anything. Why in the world would I suggest otherwise?

When we discussed the lack of professional criticism of the NIST investigation (maybe a year ago?) I don't remember claiming "that NIST's and FEMA's conclusions MUST HAVE nearly universal scientific support because no experts have managed to widely publicize their criticism of these reports." I do remember arguing that it would probably be a while before such criticism surfaced because it takes time to review 10,000 pages of information (read all that, did you?). Perhaps you would point out where I have been applying two different standards as you allege.

Pardon me if I disregard your conclusion that "the vast majority are nothing more than pseudoscientific reverse engineered conclusions completely unsupported by even a single shred of hard, physical evidence." I'll make my own conclusions without the help of such a probing analysis.



On Edit: Sorry, DU glitched on me and I lost the message (had to rewrite it).

[stickdog]

138. Physics is defined as the study of matter and energy and their

interactions. Please explain what civil engineers do that exists outside of this realm of inquiry. I took both physics and engineering classes in college, and to be blunt, the average physics professor can run circles around the average engineering professor. And while civil engineers are undoubtedly better at making buildings than physics professors, your contention that the average building engineer is more qualified than the average physics professor to comprehend the physical processes that most likely led to the historically unique collapse of the WTC towers is dubious to say the least. It's like saying that the average software engineer is more qualified to judge the reliability of a new and unique algorithm than the average mathematics professor.

Did I read all 10,000 pages that NIST has released? No. But I did read every page of every report or appendix that addressed the possible physical causes of the WTC collapse, carefully scouring them for any and all scientific observations, experimentation or conclusions firmly based on the actual examination of hard, physical evidence. What I found instead was a "cosmological" approach to explaining the WTC collapses, as if they happened billions of years ago and could therefore be only tertiarily investigated by dubiously extrapolating from limited, random photographic evidence and/or developing and tweaking computer models by varying both their assumptions and initial input conditions until these models managed to reproduce something remotely akin to the observed results. For all of the actual physical evidence that NIST uncovered to buttress their pseudoscientific speculations, it might as well have conducted its investigation of the WTC collapse from the Moon.

If you actually feel that this criticism is not warranted, please feel free to direct us to whichever of NIST's 10,000 pages you have encountered that mention ANY hard physical evidence that supports ANY of NIST's speculative conclusions concerning the cause of the collapse of the WTC towers.

[AZCat]

152. Your perverse inability...

to discern the difference between a physicist and an engineer is puzzling. Yes, they both solve "physical" problems, but to claim that, just because engineering falls within the overall realm of physics, a physicist should be able to understand and solve engineering problems is ignorant.

Civil engineers don't build buildings - structural engineers do.

In your collegiate experience you may have encountered physics professors that could "run circles around" (whatever that means) the engineering professors you met, but to extrapolate from your personal experience to such a blanket statement is pretty bold. Perhaps your institution just had a poor engineering department.

Dubious? I think I'll trust my own judgement there.

I'm not actually interested in discussing the NIST investigation with you. You have shown repeatedly in posts to DU that you harbor a strong bias against their investigation, and I have grown to doubt your ability to understand engineering fundamentals. Perhaps you just aren't capable of understanding the methods used in their investigation, or you might lack the theoretical foundations to interpret the language and equations - I don't care. Your posts are combative and I am not going to waste time on such a Sisyphean task when the act of doing so just garners insults and ridicule.


On Edit: typo

[petgoat]

156. "you harbor a strong bias"

Stickdog at least has read the portions of NIST's report relating to the
physical evidence of the WTC collapse.

I have yet to see any evidence that any of NIST's defenders have.

The fact that they truncated the model at the time of inception of
collapse, and did not model the collapse is a red flag.

The fact that they truncated the model just under the strike zone is a

red flag.

The fact that they have not one piece of core steel supporting their
thesis of overheating--and that the premature destruction of the steel
was ordered by a former federal prosecutor who should have known
better--is a red flag.

The refusal to release the blueprints is a red flag.



Their photograph of the buckled exterior columns is suspect because
the perception could simply be due to heat in the air. To my
knowledge nobody reported pre-collapse external column buckling before
NIST did.

Their colored diagram that shows the heat gradients across the floor
as if they had an array of temperature sensors installed is offensive.
By providing an unjustified precision in their conjectures they're
trying to gloss over the fact that no data support it.

[stickdog]

171. Translation: You don't wish to discuss NIST's "investigation" with me

because NIST's "investigation" was completely laughable.

If you actually feel that this criticism is not warranted, please feel free to direct us to whichever of NIST's 10,000 pages you have encountered that mention ANY hard physical evidence that supports ANY of NIST's speculative conclusions concerning the cause of the collapse of the WTC towers.

[Make7]

30. I'm sure my opinion is worth as much to you as yours is to me.

Other than dropping concrete blocks on top of each other from 12 ft., which does indeed prove how concrete blocks dropped on top of each other from 12 ft. act, is there anything new in his opinion at all? Last time I read about a concrete block experiment it was from a greater height. Leaps and bounds of advancement there.

Seriously, it took almost four years after 9/11/01 to come up with this?

-Make7

[petgoat]

8. prove it

I guess you're forgetting that the steel was destroyed on the orders of
a former federal prosecutor who surely knew exactly what he was doing,
and who was very ambitious politically too.

[MrSammo1]

160. People who think........

Do!

[Make7]

161. You reply one month later and that's all you have to add?

Do you consider yourself one of the "people who think"?

If you do, let me ask you this: do you think that someone being able to prove what happened would be more valuable than that person just telling us what they think happened?

It doesn't appear that Professor Jones has really come up with anything new to be able to make a definite conclusion either way.

So, if it's true that it was physically impossible for the towers to collapse without explosives (as some people claim) then would it not be possible for a Professor of Physics to actually prove such a thing? If he is unable to do that, then he is just one more voice in a chorus of people with a similar opinion on this subject.

-Make7

[petgoat]

163. Demand Impossible Proofs. Disinfo strategy #19.

http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/disinfo.htm

Dr. Jones is a scientist and he has a full time job. Quite wisely he
limits the scope of his paper to calling for an investigation of facts
that lead one to suspect that the official story is mistaken.

Maybe YOU knew all about the molten metal in the basement and the
violation of the first and second laws of Thermodynamics and the
violation of the laws of conservation of momentum and conservation
of angular momentum. But when a Physics professor validates these
observations it's news.

[Make7]

165. I didn't even realize I was demanding anything.

I was just saying that if he cannot prove anything new regarding the collapses, then he is just one more person claiming the same things that have been previously claimed by others.

There are educated people in relevant professions that believe the collapses were possible without being controlled demolitions. Does the fact that one Physics professor believes them to be incorrect automatically render all of their professional opinions obsolete?

Once again, if he actually were to prove anything regarding the collapses, that certainly would be something new. But if it's just the same old arguments, forgive me if do not find it very newsworthy. Would you be impressed if I produced yet another structural engineer that thinks the collapses were caused by plane crashes and fires?

Would this change your opinion of the information presented by Professor Jones?

Fulton College Response to Professor Steven Jones’s Statements Regarding Collapse of World Trade Center

Brigham Young University has a policy of academic freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas. Through the academic process, ideas should be advanced, challenged, and debated by peer-review in credible venues. We believe in the integrity of the academic review process and that, when it is followed properly, peer-review is valuable for evaluating the validity of ideas and conclusions.

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. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.

http://www.et.byu.edu/news_jones_statement.htm

-Make7

[marlev623]

166. vulger language indicates illiteracy

vulgar language indicates illiteracy and the inability to form an intellectual argument.

[Make7]

169. Please explain in more detail.

Here is the definition for illiteracy from www.answers.com:

Dictionary

il·lit·er·a·cy (ĭ-lĭt'ər-ə-sē)
n., pl. -cies.

1. The condition of being unable to read and write.
   
2. An error, as in writing or speech, made by or thought to be characteristic of one who is illiterate. See Usage Note at literate.
   
3. The condition or quality of being ignorant or unknowledgeable in a particular subject or field: cultural illiteracy; scientific illiteracy.

Do one of those adequately define your usage if the word illiteracy? (I think we can safely eliminate the first one.) Or perhaps you would like to come up with your own?

Is this opinion of yours formed solely on the basis of the content of a single one of my posts? Or do you actually have some reason for reaching such a conclusion?

I would be very much interested in discussing this matter further.

Welcome to DU.

-Make7

[electron_blue]

7. Sounds tantalizing, but no proof

His own work? Where is this published? He references no experts on demolition, which would help build his case. Looks fairly hokey to me.

[stickdog]

111. That's very amusing.

Here's a full professor sticking out his neck to speak truth to power and you judge his work as hokey, sight unseen.

[electron_blue]

178. laugh all you want. I'm saying this as another full professor of physics

[philb]

10. Here are his credentials; pretty impressive

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
Graduated from Bellevue High School, Bellevue, Washington, with 4.0 scholastic average (A=4.0) in 1967.

B.S. in Physics, Mathematics minor, magna cum laude with honors, from Brigham Young University in 1973, retaining Presidential (David O. McKay) Scholarship.

Ph.D. in Physics, Mathematics/Electronics minors from Vanderbilt University in 1978, retaining full Tuition Scholarship and Research Fellowship (1973-1978).

Ph.D. research conducted at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (1974-1977); course work completed at Stanford University.

Post-doctoral research conducted at Cornell University (CESR) and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

Conducted research at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, EG & G Idaho, Idaho Falls, 1979-1985 (Senior Engineering Specialist).

Principal Investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion 1982-1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects.

Spokesman for LAMPF Experiment #727 and co-spokesman for LAMPF Experiments #963 and #1151 (1982 - 1993).

Collaborator in several other experiments, including experiments at TRIUMF (Vancouver, Canada), The National High Energy Laboratory, KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory (Oxford, U.K.), and Kamioka, Japan.

Associate Director, Brigham Young University Center for Fusion Studies, 1989-1994

Search for fusion in condensed matter and deuterium, research for U.S. Department of Energy (May 1986 - December 1991) and for the Electric Power Research Institute (April 1990-June 1993).


AWARDS
David O. McKay Scholarship at Brigham Young University, 1968
National Merit Scholar, 1968
Tuition Scholarship and Research Fellowship at Vanderbilt
University, 1973-1978
Outstanding Young Scholar Award (BYU), 1989
Best of What's New for 1989 (Popular Science), 1989
Creativity Prize (Japanese Creativity Society), 1989
BYU Young Scholar Award (BYU), 1990
Annual Lecturer BYU Chapter of Sigma Xi (1990-1991)

[electron_blue]

17. I don't care about credentials

I've seen more than a few full professor Ph.D.'s pushing piles of dung over the years.

He doesn't support anything he's saying.

Dropping cement from several feet up? Watching videos over and over? c'mon. If he's really on to something, he can do much better than that.

[stickdog]

112. How many pages did NIST devote to reading what THEY wanted

into dubious photographic evidence?

[pox americana]

18. Another case where the more they know, the more obvious it is.

It seems like the people who actually know something about physics, structures, flight procedures, or whatever are the ones who are most certain that the WTC collapses were demolitions.

And the more they look into it, the more painfully obvious it becomes.

[electron_blue]

19. I disagree

Actually, most people who "actually know something about physics" etc. are unconvinced that the WTC collapses were demolitions.

All this guy at BYU has done is c&p some excerpts from other conspiracy theory pages as 'literature search' and his only individual research as far as I can tell is dropping cement 12 feet and watching videos carefully.

His first claim, about conservation of momentum is totally bogus. Just because he can't find it, doesn't mean that it wasn't included in their free-fall analysis. Nonetheless, let's be fair and read his own analysis. Oh, wait, he hasn't published that. He only tells us what he finds. Sorry!!

And I totally call him on his claim about there not being enough energy from gravitational potential energy alone to explain what he observes in the debris. We could look at his calculations, but he doesn't include them, or reference them. Too bad - now I'm curious and would like to see them. I could probably point out his mistakes to you.

Why doesn't he put his calculations on his website, or better yet, publish them? That's the great thing about physics - lay out your equations and assumptions and we can all repeat the calculations ourselves.

point number 5 - if he wants to use conservation of moment in his calculations, he should go study collapse of inner layers of a star before supernova collapse to see how inner beams dropped merely 12 feet can lead to such devastation (hint: it's what's piled on top of those cement blocks).

Don't be fooled by this guy because he claims fundamental laws of physics are being violated. Looks like he is missing some important implications about those fundamental laws himself.

[pox americana]

20. Please tell me where you think he's supposed to get the data

to include in such "calculations."

[electron_blue]

23. Well, for his collapse of the tower calculations, I would suggest

he assume densities for cement, steel girders and the like, get the heights of the buildings (I don't know them, but surely someone does!), the value for the acceleration of gravity is readily accessible to this physicist I'm sure. The spacings for the floors on the WTC are also surely known, but if someone claims they aren't, you could assume a standard spacing (perhaps his 12 feet) and then go from there. The data you need for this is not very hard to get. All the more reason I'm suspicious of him - we don't even see a "back of the envelope" calculation from him.

[pox americana]

26. F=Ma, KE=1/2Mv², etc. So where does he get the Ms?

From the White House website, maybe?

[vincent_vega_lives]

82. The mass was

500,000 tons. Height was 1368 ft.

Not hard to find.

I calculated the amount of energy released at the point of collapse initiation (MJ) equal to aprox 3/4 ton of TNT.

[pox americana]

87. Thanks for pulling a figure out of your ear. (n/t)

[vincent_vega_lives]

89. Its a much cleaner place

than you pull your information from. If you need some help with the process let me know. I can show you where the figure comes from.

The part of the building above the collapse point weighed around 100,000 Tons,(500,000*20%) falling 12' on to the floor below.
Instantanious velocity after falling 12' = 8.4m/s

KE = (.5)*(93,023,256kg)*(8.4m/s)sqd

KE = 3,281,860,472 joules (3281 MJ)

3,282 MJ = from 1,570 to 1,721 lbs of TNT depending on source

[Make7]

93. Have you heard of Google?

Each tower weighed approximately 500,000 tons...

http://newyorkinphotos.com/wtc/history

Each Tower:
–Weighed 500,000 tons

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html

The gravity loads (weight) produced by the towers at their bases were on the order of 500,000 tons

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam

Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

Each Tower:
–Weighed 500,000 tons

http://www.championstamp.com/worldtrade-2.htm

-Make7

[pox americana]

94. Yes, it's a good digital Q-tip.

Case in point: Nova. Repetition doesn't make earwax credible.

[Make7]

100. You have previously suggested Google was a place to find something.

Has your opinion changed? Or do you just not like what other people find?
____________________

Perhaps you can clarify something - does "pulling a figure out of your ear" mean that you think he is making stuff up? That's what I thought you meant. Maybe I interpreted that incorrectly.

There are obviously sources that report the same figure that vincent_vega_lives used. Are they all making up the same figure? Are you a coincidence theorist now?

I assume you must have the correct figure for the mass of the building to dispute the figure used. Please share it with us so we can base our calculations on the correct information.

Thanks,
Make7

[pox americana]

118. Could you please rephrase the question? (n/t)

[Make7]

119. First, correct me if I misunderstood what you meant by:

"Thanks for pulling a figure out of your ear." - pox americana

Was that not meant to imply that you believed vincent_vega_lives was making up numbers?
____________________

I posted five sources from a Google search that referred to the same figure posted by vincent_vega_lives.

Did they all just happen to make up the same number?
____________________

After I posted the results of that Google search, asking if you had heard of Google, you replied:

pox americana wrote:
Yes, it's a good digital Q-tip.

Case in point: Nova. Repetition doesn't make earwax credible.

I have seen you suggest that someone else use Google to verify information that you posted. So, is Google a valid method for finding information only if it agrees with what you wish to find?
____________________

Last, but certainly not least, if you do not know what the mass of the building actually is, how do you know that the posted figure of 500,000 tons is incorrect?

-Make7

[pox americana]

128. That's four questions.

But it beats five, so here we go: no, no, no, and I don't, but that doesn't mean it's the least bit useful. It's somebody's out-of-ear guestimate and I have no idea whose or how they arrived at it.

[Make7]

132. Perhaps you could be more specific in the future.

When replying to a post with multiple questions with a request to "rephrase the question", it might be a good idea to point out which question you wish to have rephrased.
____________________

So, if I may ask, what exactly did you mean when you posted:

   "Thanks for pulling a figure out of your ear."

-Make7

[pox americana]

141. okay. (n/t)

[vincent_vega_lives]

134. I love how NOVA and PBS are now agents of...

THE ADMINISTRATION :evilgrin:

[stickdog]

139. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is now headed by

a former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Were you not aware of that fact?

[pox americana]

142. Bingo. (n/t)

[vincent_vega_lives]

144. And he has the power to make scientists actively lie?

I swear do you think every person who is not you, is a sniveling, groveling sycophant?

Who would stand for that in your mind exactly?

[pox americana]

150. Easy as pie. Put 'em on the DHS payroll

and they'll say any stupid thing you want.

Add a Princeton professorship, and they'll fly around the country blaming themselves.

[petgoat]

140. Agents? No, just subject to being snowed by some MIT guys who are

very sure of themselves.

[vincent_vega_lives]

145. I'll take MIT guys who are sure of them selves over

strangers on an internet board who are sure of themselves any day.

[pox americana]

151. That's what they're counting on.

All they have to do is say "MIT," "National Geographic," "NIST," "Scientific American," etc. and brand-name recognition fills in all the gaping holes in their story.

p.s. and for anybody still not convinced, there's always Popular Mechanics.

[vincent_vega_lives]

91. "calculations"

In quotes no less.

There's a thing called the internet...google...ya know? Not that hard.

[carlvs]

22. In case you haven't noticed,

The CTers here LOVE violations of the fundamental laws of physics - you should have been around here when they tried to alter the physical properties and behavior of steel in a fire to back their BS "controlled demolition" claims (something that was easily debunked via Google.)

And I STILL smell a rat here concerning this so-called "letter:" the laws that governed the collapse of the WTC buildings are not the exotic atomic physics that he seems to specialize in (according to the web bio BYU has on him, and which was posted earlier) - they're the kind of things you would learn in basic college physics...

[stickdog]

113. Of course you're skeptical. You disagree.

[Bouvet_Island]

155. Skeptical.

If this is a reply to my following post, it is poor form, not in the democratic spirit of this forum to piss post like that IMO.

Posting atop, I'd as a minimum expect a single valid argument, not just empty spin. You have real points? Sources for us to check?

[Bouvet_Island]

21. I am skeptical

to this man being who he says. This is not the way I would expect a physics professor to speak about his own domain, to fellow natural scientists.

Word choices; "science-based" "Conservation of Momentum considerations" "which was actually observed" "free-fall time" "("law of increasing entropy")"

Messing up precise language. Physics professors have to be able to write precisely to arrive at that, and saying "actually observed" to another physics professor is not going to impress.

Also " due to fires", it is misrepresenting the opponents theory with no apparent gain, the theory is structural collapse because of the damage to the structures, and the subsequent weakening of the steel due to heating of critical supports. 550 degrees means half the yield, it´ll carry half the weight and it'll much easier rip in the actual scenario, which is something different from a gradual and elastic shift of load like in the fires he mentioned.



I wrote about many of the arguments and implications he make in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x55288#55540">this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x55288#55540">yesterday, also notice the correction/addendum below the post.

While my position is that the problems I mention might not be relevant, he should be able to see these and leave less opening for attack.

Also, his experiment is irrelevant, as he ignores that all the matter would continuosly grind, getting beaten again for each floor, and that the top would hit at a speed that means his experiment as a minimum should be dropping that stone from a building half-three quarts the height of the WTC. It also ignores the different energy of his brick and even two of his bricks on top of eachother. If galileo galilei had placed two concrete bricks at the ground when he did his experiment at the pisa tower, the one with a ligt and a heavy iron ball. Now would there be a difference in damage, if not in the time of impact? He is simulating maybe the first .3 second, extremely badly, not even mentioning if he is using the same concrete, and that there were way different ones in large quantities in the WTC so he isn't. I mean if the experiment actually took place.

Further, If this man by surprise is who he claims to be and are going to be used as some sort of witness or representative of the 9/11 movement, his background and relative sanity should be checked thoroughly first, Eg. he might be an apocalyptic,sectarian or otherwise unstable and suited to do more harm than good like exposing his hidden agenda at the moment he gets the ear of a larger public. Which would make David Ray Griffin look like an apocalyptic too, or a lousy scientist, by assosiation.

[petgoat]

24. "550 degrees means half the yield"

But NIST has no core steel samples showing heating above 250.

[LARED]

25. So what? (n/t)

[petgoat]

28. So there's no evidence to support NIST's thesis.

This study purports to debunk the projections NIST apparently made on
the basis of flames observed in windows. The study alleges that the
observed flames at the exterior hogged all the oxygen (there were fire
isolation floors in the core) and the core fires can hardly have been
infernos.

http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/16223.php

You guys say the controlled demolition hypothesis is unsustainable
because there's no physical evidence for it--when any physical evidence
there was has been deliberately destroyed by Giuliani. And then you
say that the NIST study is credible despite the fact that there's no
physical evidence for it because it was all destroyed by Giuliani.

[Bouvet_Island]

31. First,

where do I say this:

"You guys say the controlled demolition hypothesis is unsustainable
because there's no physical evidence for it- -when any physical evidence there was has been deliberately destroyed by Giuliani."

I don´t agree with it, I believe there for example are debris accessible that should contain trace amounts of explosives if they were present at 9/11.

I didn´t quote Nist about the temperature, I believe I used David Ray Griffins source, and it was not my point that this source was right about temperatures but that some people are wrong about physics. I also disagree using their report as proof the tempereatures were not higher, I am skeptical of their analysis and you as I get you claim it to be entirely fraudulent. I don´t actully know anything certain about what temperatures inside the WTC 1 and 2 and I am skeptical of anyone saying they do without offering good proof. The two parties today that claim to know with high certainty the mentioned temperatures in critical parts of the building are NIST, the 9/11 commision etc and on the other side acteurs in the 9/11 truth movement.

The attitude of the thread starter that we should accept he is real on an email or seeing a post from a new account, I mean I certainly welcome you to the discussions here and I am impressed by your initiative, but at the same time, since we know about professional liars and distractors both extreme paranoia or letting down your skeptics filter is not advisable, a Healthy skepticism is what we should have and to accept criticism as a good thing.

For the link you posted, it seems to argue with your point;

" The government has asserted weakening by fire is a primary cause of collapse. From its "modeling" the government concludes fires MAY have heated columns 500-600 C and made them weaken and bow. But NIST commissioned Underwriter Laboratories (UL) to conduct tests on the recovered physical WTC steel and UL found that most columns did not reach 250 C. This corroborates that the building was acting as a giant heatsink, or that fires did not reach 500-600 C temperatures. The government has repeatedly asserted since 2002 that the recovered steel adequately represents the two towers. The government contradicts itself. It is unable to explain why its hypothetical modeling is superior to physical data. The government goes so far as to avoid discussion of this data in its final report and most of its public presentations. It is quite unscientific to ignore irrefutable data that contradicts the theory you are trying to peddle."

Laboratory testing WTC steel, that's about as physical evidence as you can get. Or you are arguing against your link, that the test mentioned here was a forgery.

Secondly, this part:

"The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The core columns could carry 135%. For floor 97 to collapse, the equivalent of 55% of the core columns and 80% of the perimeter columns would have to fail. That means on average 26 core columns and 189 perimeter columns would have to fail. 75% of the total columns would have to fail. This indicates that the WTC 1 design had lots of redundancy. This was no house of cards. Could fires burning on only 13% of floor 97 cause 75% of the columns to fail simultaneously? Science says no way. Add the fact that the steel was certified ASTM E119 and at least a majority of the columns still had fireproofing. Add the fact that fires burned at most about 45 minutes. Add the fact that on floor 97 at the time of collapse no fires existed on the north and west faces, that 45 minute fires existed on the east face, and that less than 25 minute fires existed on the south face; and one can see the impossibility of 200+ columns being harmed catastrophically by heat of fire."

It is in my opion possibly right but the reasoning or presentation in not sound. He seems to be speaking about an intact structul support system, that effectively distributes stress. He doesn´t seem to factor in any heating, though he use it as an argument, yield is less at 250 degrees. He states the obvious,

"This indicates that the WTC 1 design had lots of redundancy. This was no house of cards.". A good description of about every building in America, though some of them fall down in earthquakes or other disasters etc. It also refers to the structural support before it was hit by airplane, though it might have been true after this it is not clear from his analysis since it is lacking.

"Could fires burning on only 13% of floor 97 cause 75% of the columns to fail simultaneously? "

This is the only possible scenario? How? No domino effect possible?

"Add the fact that the steel was certified ASTM E119 and at least a majority of the columns still had fireproofing. Add the fact that fires burned at most about 45 minutes. Add the fact that on floor 97 at the time of collapse no fires existed on the north and west faces, that 45 minute fires existed on the east face, and that less than 25 minute fires existed on the south face; and one can see the impossibility of 200+ columns being harmed catastrophically by heat of fire."

All these data seems to carry uncertainties. It is also partly irrelevant to structural failure, what is important is the critical places not the average percentage. The steel certification falls in the category of stating the obvious, eg noone says the steel sucked, and finally his conclusion:

"and one can see the impossibility of 200+ columns being harmed catastrophically by heat of fire."

Is not a description of what anyone believe happened or would have to happen to down the WTC.

Further;

"If a column's strength fell below 100% of the building load then it would have started to fail. It is averaged that 80% of the perimeter columns had to fail in order for what is documented to be caused by a natural gravity collapse. In the picture data, do you see 189 bent perimeter columns at floor 97? No. Can you observe changes to the building structure from all this failing such as widespread misalignment of floors? No."

Where is what he says documented? How? I don´t see a section with sources listed? Again not accounting for possible uneven distribution of stress, this time with a rethorical question. He only speak about "colums", the perimeter were built of segments, and so the horizontal truss system would seem to be a weak spot. Eg loss of anchoring would weaken the outer columns as they would be able to move out of place, starting chain reaction. Now this might just be a hip shot from me, but my point is that he don´t seem to have good basis for his confidence.

I am not saying he might not have good, valid or important point, but this aint exactly a scientific paper and it is probably a good thing to be skeptical about what he says rather than the opposite.

Finally, I would be very interested in audio or video from the session, if it is felt that it would change the event I think it still would be good to document it for later use. And I´ll be happy to answer questions about what I have presented in my postings here the last day, readily admitting errors or correction if I am proven wrong.

[Klimmer]

32. Why doubt/attack the man? Replying to everyone negative above . . .

Why attack his physics/professional credibility over an informal email to his colleagues? I see emails from informed colleagues all the time in science education where terms are used in proper context, but may not be the formal adoption. This wasn't meant for peer review or up to formal publishing standards. Just something to think about among friends or colleagues. I see no glaring errors in his reasoning.

And why the attack on someone's faith. I may not agree with LDS, but I know the difference between the tools of science and religion. Science is about cosmic order(the how), studying phenomenon that can be measured and analyzed utilizing the scientific method. Religion on the other hand, is about cosmic purpose (the why), utilizing the tools of faith and philosophy. The two are different endeavors, different tools, both valid and yet compatible.

Are you going to question Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and perhaps Einstein's faiths and question their contributions to science/physics?

I agree with his questioning 9-11 on the basis of physics evidence alone. It didn't happen, nor could it happen the way the Bush Administration would have everyone believe --- the 9-11 Commission Report. Now that report is faith based science . . . and I don't do faith based science.

[Bouvet_Island]

38. Why doubt

"Why attack his physics/professional credibility over an informal email to his colleagues? I see emails from informed colleagues all the time in science education where terms are used in proper context, but may not be the formal adoption. This wasn't meant for peer review or up to formal publishing standards. Just something to think about among friends or colleagues. I see no glaring errors in his reasoning."

I think he is doing the same that you are doing know, mis-stating what other people says to make their arguments look stupid. The professional credibility of professor Jones, I am not disputing that his cold fusion research is good, no irony here, he actually seems to be a leading scientist in *real cold fusion work, not the fake one that got (in)famous.

I am skeptical of people on message board and the internet in general being who they are. This is a good principle, that I think it is important be taught to kids. So I don't think it is proven that this letter came from him save some form of validation, that the seems we got, good. This is not attacking credibility, it is just a good principle.

Also, it is correct that I am partly negative, a step beyond skeptic, to this part:

7. I understand that models of the steel-frame WTC buildings at Underwriters Laboratories subjected to intense fires did NOT collapse. And no steel-frame buildings before or after 9/11/2001 have collapsed due to fire. Thus, the "official" fire-pancaking model fails the scientific test of REPRODUCIBILITY. (Earthquake- caused collapses have occured, but there were no major earthquakes in NYC on that day. And buildings which have collapsed due to earthquakes collapse asymmetrically, as expected -- not like the nearly straight-down collapse of WTC 7 to a small rubble pile!)

Argument is nonsensical eg comparing to buildings not hit by planes or vertical failure as opposed to horisontal failure of the structure in the case of earthquakes, and finally entirely invalid appliance of scientific theory. All the effects and forces at play are possible to prove in experiments that are reproducible. And after his logic, obviously whole fields of science like climate modelling is not scientific, eg. there are only one known climate that have ceen experimented on with gas emissions etc, and the model of what will happen is best-effort.

I think you got the part about the faith wrong. It doesn't say in the bible that the holes in the mayan figures he depicts as evidence are connected to christ, I read this as representing his own opinon, which I disagree wtih. It is also a bad use of the word "evidence" from a man that works in science, without that being a discredit to his work on particle physics, that I am sure as most good scientific papers stand on it own feet, it would be equally good and checkable if a person without a title wrote it.

And when I say "he might be an apocalyptic" I don't mean that "It is a 20% chance he are an apocalyptic, as 20% of US christians are apocalyptics", but that there are more factors than academic titles that are important to the credibility of what he is saying about 9/11, that could affect his ability to provide weight to the arguments. Eg if he believes in young earth or creationism, it will be easy to attack his scientific credibility on an issue like 9/11.

I once arranged a conference on Alternative energy sources. One of the objectives where to make these be taken more seriously. One inventor of a geothermal plant, he had I would guess nothing against this agenda, he just felt it was important for him to get out to people how he was under surveillance by satelites watching his every move etc. Though I am sure it wasn't intended as sabotage on his part, the story thought me about a common problem with people on the fringe of science of hidden agendas.

To take a further example, Nikola Tesla was an excellent scientist, but I think it is safe to say that his work and impact would have benefited if he had not pursued a plan to prepare the United states for attack by UFOs. Nikola Tesla is a very good example of a man that would be a poor witness for problems around the physics of 9/11, even if being right it would be easy to dismiss the theory with reference to UFO theories.

To a lot of US religious people, 9/11 carry a different meaning than what it does to non religious people and religious people might have as I pointed out a hidden agenda. I have great respect for religious people, like my entire family. But I am highly skepctical of a mixing religion into science, and while I don't think his jesus-maya theory makes him either an apocalyptic, an "ufo professor" or a fake, it seems to be a statement that he is of a different opinion in this issue.

The form of his writing remind me of the type of propaganda Rove's buddies have turned out after NO, and seeing so poor an argument from a guy that should be far more clever, there is red light in my skeptic panel. I'm not saying I don't believe he could or can do better, it is possible he have quite another argument prepared than what is presented here, I'd be delighted to hear a thorough work on the physics and anomalies etc.

"Are you going to question Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and perhaps Einstein's faiths and question their contributions to science/physics?"

Obviously, no. Why on earth would I do this? What I believe these men have in common is a very strong position on the issue of religion interfering in science.

"I agree with his questioning 9-11 on the basis of physics evidence alone. It didn't happen, nor could it happen the way the Bush Administration would have everyone believe --- the 9-11 Commission Report. Now that report is faith based science . . . and I don't do faith based science."

Then you seem to disagree with mr Jones, that believes scientific method is suited to prove Jesus' visits to America.

[LARED]

33. Now that the professor is a member of DU perhaps

he would be kind enough to respond to some questions

4. The pulverization of concrete to powder and the horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of yards, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, requires much more energy than is available from gravitational potential energy alone.

Please explain why you believe this is true? The available potential energy is quite large and I believe it is a myth that the concrete was pulverized base on personal conversations with people that worked in the clean up. The main source of the dust as shown from samples taken was gypsum, glass, insulation, ceiling tile, vermiculite, and some concrete. See

Could you provide some evidence that steel bean were ejected 100's of yards. I've seen no evidence of this. Perhaps some steel landed a distance away from the footprint, but it also fell quite a distance. Perhaps that explains it.

Explosives will give the observed features.

What are you basing this on? I can easily say the pancake collapse theory will provide you with the observed features.

Other scientists have provided quantitative analysis of the observed pulverization's, and I can provide references if you wish.

Please provide them.

Here we are appealing to the violation of Conservation of Energy inherent in the "official" pancaking-floors theory-- a horrendous violation, forbidden by principles of Physics.

You have already concluded there is violation without any evidence. I'm sure as a scientist you know this is not going to be good enough. So how do you know this? Also the conservation of energy is inherent in all energy transfers to my knowledge, and there is nothing surprising about this in the pancake theory.


Thank you for your time.

[pox americana]

40. Still pushing pancakes I see.

Do you ever look at your own photos or do you just hope nobody else will?

[LARED]

41. What photos are you talking about? (n/t)

[pox americana]

44. The ones showing the relation of the floor diaphragms to the core columns

to begin with. Even a cursory examination shows the "pancaking" theory to be fraudulent. The structural core supported the diaphragms, not vice versa, and any floor truss failures would have had a minimal effect on the rest of the structure.

[pox americana]

45. Like this one, for instance:

[spooked911]

59. Cool picture! Thanks!

[vincent_vega_lives]

81. Notice all that reinforced concrete?

:eyes:

No the truss did not support the core columns, but the fire caused the sagging of the trusses which pulled the perimeter columns inward, weakening them. Once the outer columns buckled the floor collapsed.

[pox americana]

88. Wrong thread. (n/t)

[vincent_vega_lives]

90. Good answer!

Reading comprehension not your strong suite, huh? :shrug:

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

35. The WTC Carpet Caper.

Where is all the carpeting? If the towers simply collapsed, there should be acres of carpet in the debris, as it would only be missing from floors that were engulfed in fire. There should be large sections of carpet in the pictures of the debris, though I have not found any as of yet.

Commercial carpeting, such as that which is used in offices, is one of the most durable textiles made, as it has to endure years of constant foot traffic with minimal maintenance.

The missing carpeting, like the fine dust particulates is another nail in the coffin of the "pancake" collapse theory.

[vincent_vega_lives]

36. Ok so tell us then

Just how does this alleged "missing carpeting" equate to controlled demolition exactly? :eyes:

This is the best one yet.

[LARED]

39. Don't you know that

explosives cause carpet to disapppear.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

42. Correction

Illusionists may appear to be able to cause carpets and other mundane things to 'disappear.'

Explosives cause carpeting to become very fine particulates, i.e. 10 nanometres to 100 micrometres in diameter. Collapses Do Not.

[Make7]

43. Where were the explosives placed to achieve this effect? ( n/t )

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

52. Inside the WTC Towers.

Care to explain how your "pancake collapse theory" thoroughly destroyed all the carpeting in the WTC towers. Please try to include references of other collapses that have also produced this phenomenon. Also be sure to include references where other "collapses" have created the kind of dust and its respective proportions to the materials of which those buildings were constructed from.

Go ahead drop a 100,000 lbs of concrete on some commercial carpeting from a height of even 50 feet, I am sure that the carpet will still be recognizable even after such an assault and that the concrete won't be reduced to a fine powder either.

[LARED]

53. Actually you are way ahead of yourself

first you need to provide some evidence that the carpet was actually thoroughly destroyed no matter by what process.

[LARED]

46. The WTC tower 1 and 2 had 10 million square feet of rental

floor space. Most of it carpeted. 10,000,000 square feet is about 230 acres. To put this into perspective Central Park in New York City is just under 850 acres.

Care to explain how 230 acres of carpet is reduced to micron sized particles by explosives?

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

51. Simple, the same way explosives reduce most materials to micron sized...

particles.

It's known as brisance.

bri·sance - noun - The shattering effect of the sudden release of energy in an explosion.

http://www.tfd.com/brisance

[LARED]

54. Ok, so how were the explosives placed over 230 acres

so brisance reduced the carpet to micron sized particles?

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

56. I can't say exactly, as I did not place the explosives in the WTC.

How about you provide information proving how the "pancake collapse theory" destroyed all the carpeting which you admit was present.

I have explained how explosives could have done so, now it's your turn.

[LARED]

57. First you need to explain

how you came to believe all the carpeting was destroyed. I've never seen any information that makes that claim other than you.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

58. Nice try...

Please provide pictures or other evidence that proves the carpeting that definately existed in the WTC towers was NOT destroyed.

In other words, SHOW ME THE MONEY.

You have claimed it existed yourself, so Wherdy Go?

Maybe the carpeting is hidden in the same sand dune as Iraq's WMD, that Saddam sure is a resourceful SOB.

Thank you for your full cooperation on this matter in advance.

[LARED]

66. Very Funnnny; Do me a favor

Either put me on ignore or take a class in logic or something that improves critical thought.

You come out of the blue with this notion that all the carpet was destroyed without any evidence. You then claim that the "missing" carpet is evidence of explosives being used. When it is pointed out that your position where 230 acres of carpet was reduced to micron sized particles is from the realm of fantasy; you give me the old nice try routine.

Funny. really it is.

[petgoat]

67. You're both right. LARED, the "in the absence of proof that I'm wrong I

must be right" is a logically weak argument. That's the argument NIST
makes for the fires bringing down the towers.

PY is right though, IMHO the carpet should have been a major pain in the
ass in taking the rubble apart. Most of the floors never had fires.
The carpet should have been a major impediment to removing the pancaked
floors. Unless you believe the pancaking floors vaporized them.

[LARED]

68. That's not my argument

We all know there were carpets in WTC 1 and 2. My estimates of the amount of carpet is based on known facts, and as such will be reasonably correct. The point is that if you are going to state 230 acres of carpet was reduced to micron sized particles, hence indicating a controlled demolition, then you must actually provide some evidence the carpet was pulverized.

I'm not making any argument other than if your going to make a claim it is incumbent upon the one making the claim to provide some type of evidence to back it up.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

75. I took up LARED on his suggestion...

He is actually pretty funny though, demanding that I prove the carpeting was destroyed, when he is well aware of the fact the debris has been discarded, rendering such proof as nearly impossible, while at the same time saying the carpeting wasn't destroyed on the basis that I can't absolutely prove that it was, yet providing no proof of his own showing that the carpeting was not destroyed, other than his claim of it being so.

I also think it is funny that he has to make disparaging comments about me simply for pointing out something that was previously overlooked by others.

:eyes:

[AZCat]

69. Why weren't the rest of the materials...

present during the collapse also reduced to micron sized particles? I have seen pictures of the WTC debris and there are lots of pieces that are definitely not micron sized.

WTC debris pics:
www.peteranthonymoore.com/archive/20011006.html (scroll down to the Monday, October 2001 entry)
www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/

Why just the carpet? :shrug:

[vincent_vega_lives]

79. Shaped Carpet Bombs

The carpet was made out of C4. :think:

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

96. I want triple the dose of whatever you're smoking...

Did I at any time say that ONLY the carpet was reduced to micron sized particles?

NO I did not.

Get off the dope and stop putting YOUR words in the mouths' of others.

[AZCat]

99. Perhaps if you took more care in your perusal of my post...

we would not have this misunderstanding.

The pictures I linked to show objects that are clearly not micron sized particles. Please explain why these were not "reduced" in the same manner as the carpet allegedly was.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

102. Not so from my view...

Why weren't the rest of the materials...present during the collapse also reduced to micron sized particles?

Why just the carpet?

Seems to me that you were implying that I was saying that only the carpeting was reduced micron sized particles. As to the picutres in your post, they show mostly perimeter columns and other assorted pieces of metal which are much stronger than carpeting.

The perimeter columns were also farther away from the explosives used to pulverize the concrete floors, which would also reduce the amount of damage that they sustained.

But hey, don't take my word for it, here are some eyewitnesses that were there.

These clips are from "9/11 (The Filmmakers' Commemorative DVD) by Jules & Gedeon Naudet.

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman1: Then you just sort of ... this cloud of s___
just chasin' you down
fireman4: Where did you go?
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman2: You couldn't outrun it.
fireman1: You couldn't outrun it.
fireman4: So what did you do?
fireman2: I jumped behind a battalion car,
I hid under the car, I was waitin' to die.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

You have two 110 story office buildings.
You don't find a desk.
You don't find a chair.
You don't find a telephone, a computer.
The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad,
and it was about this big:
(makes a shape with his hand about 4 inches in diameter)
The building collapsed to dust.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/collapsed_to_dust.mpg

http://wtceo.org/ A major resource for health issues related to the WTC 'dust'.

[AZCat]

106. "Stronger", huh?

So carpet undergoes adiabatic shear banding also? What kind of testing are you using to compare the relative "strengths" of carpet and "perimeter columns and other assorted pieces of metal"?

[rman]

147. blown to bits - how do you explain

the missing carpets?

[rman]

146. not to mention computers and other office contents

much of which was found as microscopic particles in the dust.

http://911busters.com/911-Commission.html

https://secure.reopen911.org/freedvd.php

[funflower]

47. There is a real Prof. Jones @ BYU, but this post also appeared at

http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=11734

Hmmmm..... Not sure what to think.

[spooked911]

60. It looks to me as if Philb copied the post to that forum from the DU post

Note, the DU post appeared first.

[funflower]

62. Ah. You are correct. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Make7]

76. It also appeared last month on the Guerrilla News Network forums.

http://www.gnn.tv/forum/thread.php?id=6031&page=12

After it loads, search for "Jones, Steven". Near the end of that post by neverknwo, you can find the email in this thread's original post.

-Make7

BTW - that gnn thread is a veritable treasure trove of 911 conspiracy theories. Interesting reading.

[LARED]

55. An additional comment for the Professor

He stated

Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even deal with the collapse of WTC-7. This is a striking omission of highly relevant data.

This is nothing striking or relevant about this as the 9/11 commission's mandate had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7.


http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05aug20041050/www.gpoaccess.go
v/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

From the 9/11 commission report

Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission.


I'm beginning to think the Professor didn't do his homework.

[spooked911]

61. Obviously "relevant" can be interpreted in different ways--

the strange belated collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 is certainly relevant to the collapses of the WTC1 and 2 towers, which killed most of the people on 9/11.

Personally I was very disappointed the 9/11 commission only gave a very cursory mention of the collapse of the WTC1 and WTC2 towers, seeing as how central these events were to 9/11.

Also, their mandate was clearly very broad and flexible, so there is no reason a priori why they wouldn't have mentioned WTC7.

[petgoat]

65. “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11

So LARED, are you maintaining that the collapse of WTC7 had nothing to
do with the attacks of 9/11? WTC7's unprecedented collapse is just a
coincidence?

The mandate statement come from page xv. At the top of xvi they say
their aim was "to provide the fullest possible account of the events
surrounding 9/11...."

The fullest account would seem to me to include the collapse of WTC7 and
list its tenants.

Dr. David Ray Griffin lists 115 critical omissions in the 9/11 Commission Report here:

http://ny911truth.org/articles/571-page_lie-DRG.htm

Mindy Kleinberg rate the 9/11 Commission's responses to their questions
here:

http://justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

(Is 35% a D or an F?)

[LARED]

70. This is simple. really

The law directed us to investigate “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,”

WTC 7 was not attacked. It's collapse was a byproduct of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

[janedoe]

72. How do you know that WTC7 was not attacked?

Please provide your sources and evidence for this. (Be careful not to implicate yourself. :-) )

[janedoe]

78. LARED, if it's so "simple," where's your evidence?

You said, "WTC 7 was not attacked." (post#70)

How do you know that WTC7 was not attacked?

I'd expect you would have provided that evidence by now, unless you were making baseless conjectures or are concerned you might implicate yourself.

[vincent_vega_lives]

80. Because

there is NO evidence it WAS attacked. And there is quite a bit of evidence detailing how it most likley did collapse.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[stickdog]

115. No physical evidence supports FEMA's wild-assed speculations.

Not a single piece.

[vincent_vega_lives]

125. "wild-assed speculations"

AGAIN with the IRONY. You are killing me. :popcorn:

[stickdog]

172. Yes, the idea that steel loses its strength at less than 250 C is iron-ic.

If you actually feel that this criticism is not warranted, please feel free to direct us to whichever of NIST's 10,000 pages you have encountered that mention ANY hard physical evidence that supports ANY of NIST's speculative conclusions concerning the cause of the collapse of the WTC towers.

[LARED]

83. Try and keep up Janedoe

The word attacked as understood by the 9/11 commission (and other clear thinking people) means the guys that hijacked the jets and used them as weapons. Unless I missed it no one ran an aircraft into WTC 7 that day.

Because the 9/11 commission used the normal definition, they quite natural understood investigating the collapse of WTC 7 was outside of their scope on inquiry.

The CT'er can moan all day long about the 9/11 commission, but at the end of the day they are expecting them to do thing outside of their mandate.

Also, what is the good Lords name are you referring to about implicating myself?

[janedoe]

84. So, is being hit by an airplane the only criteria?

The airplanes themselves weren't hit by other airplanes, so why are those passengers included in the body count as victims of terrorism?

[LARED]

85. You did say you are an engineering professor and materials expert?

The reason I ask is that based on the question I can only surmise you are twelve years old. Becoming an engineering professor at that tender age is quite an accomplishment.

The airplanes themselves weren't hit by other airplanes, so why are those passengers included in the body count as victims of terrorism?

Or were you just having a logic free moment? It happens to the best of us.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

92. Baseless claims?

"How do you know that WTC7 was not attacked? Please provide your sources and evidence for this." - from my post#72.

Without sources, you are making totally baseless claims, and I see no point in further discussion.

This statement is pretty good evidence that you have no backround in science.

[spooked911]

95. How do you figure that?

Re:
This statement is pretty good evidence that you have no backround (sic) in science.

by the way, VVL, do YOU have a background in science?

[vincent_vega_lives]

103. Enough to know that statement

is about as much as an antithesis to science as one can mutter.

[spooked911]

105. Why? Could you explain better?

[vincent_vega_lives]

121. Here is the statement again

"How do you know that WTC7 was not attacked? Please provide your sources and evidence for this." - from my post#72.

Without sources, you are making totally baseless claims, and I see no point in further discussion.

Sources? Is she a scientist or journalist? Sources of what? Evidence of a NON attack? What exactly would that be? The NON-existance of explosives at WTC7? Lack of evidence of attack is the evidence. Every "source" in existance points to a NON-attack on WTC7, so I'm not sure what "totally baseless claimes" she is refering to.

[spooked911]

122. For what it is worth, this site theorizes that WTC7 was hit by a missile

it is kind of an interesting site:

http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/index.html

[spooked911]

123. While I agree it is hard to prove a negative, this by no means indicates

that the person asking for this proof has had no scientific training.

Scientists aren't always 100% logical. In fact, this is probably why so many scientists seem to buy the WTC pancake collapse theory.

[LARED]

124. A claasic if there ever was one

Scientists aren't always 100% logical. In fact, this is probably why so many scientists seem to buy the WTC pancake collapse theory.

[vincent_vega_lives]

135. Pancake Collapse Theory

I sometimes ponder that at IHOP. Add little syrup and my golden disks begin to sag. :shrug:

[LARED]

137. More proof the pancake collapse is untenable

I made a model WTC out of pancakes and it didn't collapse.



Although after placing some large pancakes on top, I did manage to create a pancake "slide off the top effect"



:donut: are my next modeling material.

[stickdog]

143. Keep this up and you'll be heading NIST in no time!

This is just the sort of profound scientific investigation that NIST looks for!

[LARED]

148. Hey, nice snappy comeback, well done. (n/t)

[LARED]

104. This is simple, try hard to understand.

The 9/11 commission's task was to investigate the terrorist attacks. Now even you must understand that defining terrorist attacker as a group outside of the 19 hijacker and their organization is a position held my only a few people. I'd bet a million bucks none of them are on the 9/11 commission.

My only point is that the 9/11 commission using the conventional definition of terrorist attacker, and having a defined scope of inquiry, would not have included the collapse of WTC 7. In addition, pretending shock, dismay, and suspicion about this fact only indicates the CT'er can't read well, or is engaged in sophistry.

Well janedoe, which is it?

[petgoat]

108. 9/11 commission using the conventional definition of terrorist attacker

assumed the veracity of the official version of an event they were
charged with investigating.

An analogous botanical investigation would be to conduct a "How and Why
Pyramid-Shaped Greenhouses Benefit Plant Growth" investigation instead
of "The Effects--If Any--of Pyramid-Shaped Greenhouses on Plant
Growth."

Since the collapse of WTC7 did not fit their assumptions, it was deemed
irrelevant. As was the reports of explosions by William Rodriguez and
FDNY personnel--is it true that no FDNY people were interviewed? As was
the hijackers' source of funds. Everything that did not fit the
officially-blessed assumptions was left out.

[funflower]

107. There's no need to be rude.

[adolfo]

162. LARED, your logic makes no sense

LARED,

Please feel free to correct my interpretation of your post.

So, you agree that WTC7 building should not be part of the “official” investigation.

BECAUSE;

1.) a plane did not fly into WTC7

EVEN THOUGH;

1.) “Officially” WTC7 fell from a fire as a *result* of the attack.
2.) WTC 7 and twin towers share the same characteristics. ( ie: Evidence of molten steel and explosives.)
3.) The owner of WTC7 acknowledged (on national TV) his decision to “pull” (demolish) his building. http://www.wtc7.net/lcache/killtown_wtc7.html


Your logic astounds me.

[LARED]

164. Here's a correction

I was addressing the 9/11 commission's mandate. It does not include the collapse of WTC7, and there was no reason to include it based on the commissions mandate.

WTC 7 is part of the official investigation and should be as the collapse analysis is a very important to the improvement of building codes.

[theSaiGirl]

167. "What WTC7 collapse ? We don't see any WTC7...." - The 9/11 Commission

Lared says:

"The word attacked as understood by the 9/11 commission (and other clear thinking people) means the guys that hijacked the jets and used them as weapons. Unless I missed it no one ran an aircraft into WTC 7 that day.
Because the 9/11 commission used the normal definition, they quite natural understood investigating the collapse of WTC 7 was outside of their scope on inquiry. The CT'er can moan all day long about the 9/11 commission, but at the end of the day they are expecting them to do thing outside of their mandate."

..... Isn't this quote above priceless ?
So we have this phony "commission" they hobbled together, now thoroughly exposed and discedited on so many fronts (the "Able Danger" red-herring being just one example) ... and "Lared" is trotting out the pathetic and laughable excuse that the unprecedented collapse of a 47-story skyscraper - WTC7 - "was outside their scope of inquiry".

That would be like the Warren Commission claiming that Gov.Connelly's bullet wounds (from the presumed "magic bullet" of 11/22/63), were somehow "outside their scope of inquiry".

Congragulations, "Lared".
You get the "Three Monkeys Award for 2005":
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Kean and Hamilton, with their fake "9/11 Commission", probably figured they could dodge the whole implausible mess over WTC7; by letting Larry Silverstein handle it with an open admission on PBS "Frontline" that they decided to "pull" WTC7 at 5:30 in the evening on 9/11.

Of course, the official FEMA report is still parrotting the lie that WTC7 fell as a consequence of the Towers going down.
I can't help but chuckle at these "Keystone Cop" clowns, spooks, paid professional liars and useful idiots; who keep changing their cover-stories so often, they can't keep from tripping over their own fumbling feet, and contradicting themselves.

They should get their formal lies ironed out and agreed-upon first, so that the in-your-face absurdities don't look so ridiculous.
But then again, in a nation of scientific and cultural illiterates, who's really paying attention anyway ?
How else to explain Tucker Carlson's clownish and infantile behavior, with his anti-intellectual spitballs directed at BYU physics Ph.D. Jones on MSNBC's completely rigged and censored "interview"
They wouldn't even let him show one of the many videos of WTC7 being "pulled". That's how terrified they are of showing it.
Because WTC7 is such an obvious controlled demolition.
Better to bury it ... make it go away... ignore it at all costs..

So Lared once again demonstrates his uncanny ability to place the dumbing-down of America at center-stage in this discussion

In the whole sorry mess of treason, lies and mass murder that constitute the crimes of 9/11; it's the mass psy-op, and the public's sad willingness to comply with it, that make such treason possible.

This should reinforce our understanding that the massive inside job conducted on 9/11, and its pre-planned bloody aftermath of unrestricted global war, torture and police-state surveillance; is all premised on the deliberate long-term dumbing-down and brainwashing of the American herd.

That's our basic problem... isn't it ?

[LARED]

168. The 9/11 Commissions was mandated

to investigate

Our mandate was sweeping.The law directed us to investigate “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission.

It's very simple, WTC7 was not attacked by terrorists. Why is this difficult to comprehend? Nor did the commission investigate the unprecedented collapse of WTC 1&2.

Interestingly you state

In the whole sorry mess of treason, lies and mass murder that constitute the crimes of 9/11; it's the mass psy-op, and the public's sad willingness to comply with it, that make such treason possible.

This should reinforce our understanding that the massive inside job conducted on 9/11, and its pre-planned bloody aftermath of unrestricted global war, torture and police-state surveillance; is all premised on the deliberate long-term dumbing-down and brainwashing of the American herd.

That's our basic problem... isn't it ?

It appears that some people have a basic problem understanding that the 9/11 commission had a limited scope. Some may even call it dumbed down.

[marlev623]

170. another round of full contact with sai girl

every time "lared" goes a round with saigirl i can hear doctors saying "nothing we can do, call his wife in".

[stickdog]

114. Simple as in "once you have the chicken, you get the egg."

Why wasn't it part of the 9/11 Commission's "mission" to investigate the collapse of WTC-7?

For that matter, why wasn't it part of NIST's "mission" to examine a single pice of physical evidence from WTC-7's rubble pile?

[funflower]

64. So, Spooked 911, are you saying Prof. Jones sent this to YOU, or are you

just passing it on? Do you know him personally?

[spooked911]

73. He sent it to me personally, but it is a letter he has circulated to his

academic colleagues, so it wasn't anything special he wrote for me.

I don't really know him except by e-mail.

[unschooler]

98. Good to hear it's not just an internet rumor.

[janedoe]

101. Thanks for saying this. (n/t)

[Bouvet_Island]

71. I think it is appropriate

to post NIST pancaking theory here, as they present it in the summary if their report. I apologize for the formatting.

Seeing people representing NIST as saying the buildings went down "because of fire", and also seeing people present the structural damaage as neglible at this board, You may not agree with NIST but they just didn't claim it "went down by fire" in the way that other large buildings didn't, they say they went down because of structural damage that became critical due to additional weakening by fires. Whether this is a plausible theory for the collapse of WTC1+2 is in my assessment something that could use a little more illumination from enthusiasts of both theories.


"Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of
the aircraft.

• The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal
structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers
withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged
insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires. The robustness of the perimeter
frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact.
The structural system redistributed loads without collapsing in places of aircraft impact,
avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was
intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In
each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural
components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.

• In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the
building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their
capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became
overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the
south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely
2 The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for
each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not
actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse
became inevitable.
Executive Summary Draft for Public Comment
xliv NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation
determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the
south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.

• In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the
east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side
of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter
columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring
columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of
the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft
impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the
perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC
2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building
core and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the
aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.

• The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft
impact damage and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been
widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact."

[Kevin Fenton]

126. Various objections to NIST

"...would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged
insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires."
NIST's estimation of the stripping of fireproofing is one of the most remarkable parts of its report: they estimate 140,000 square feet of floor area plus 82 of the 94 core columns were stripped of insulation. IMHO these are high-end estimates, at the very least.

"In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner"
NIST ran two aircraft impact simulations for the South Tower: Case C, where the impact parameters best matched those observed (i.e. the hole was the right shape in the computer simulation and the plane flew the way it did on the videos), and Case D, where the impact parameters were altered to make the damage worse, but the computer simulation corresponded less well to the evidence (i.e. the impact hole was not quite right and the plane was going too fast). The core was damaged "severely" in Case D, but not in Case C (meaning the building didn't actually fall down in Case C).

"WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core."
More damage to the South Tower core than the North Tower core is not very probable. American 11 hit the North Tower core head on, whereas only half of United 175 could have hit the South Tower core, so NIST is saying that half of one 767 did more damage than the whole of the other 767, despite the fact that one of United 175's engines missed the core entirely and the other directly impacted a concrete floor slab. While the fuselage and both engines of American 11 could have caused damage to the North Tower core, only the fuselage of United 175 could have caused damage to the South Tower core.

"The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact."
This is how NIST arrived at its dislodgement claims:
"In interpreting the output of the aircraft impact simulations, NIST assumed that the debris impact dislodged insulation if the debris force was strong enough to break a gypsum board partition immediately in front of the structural component. Experiments at NIST confirmed that an array of 0.3 inch diameter pellets travelling at 350 mph stripped the insulation from steel bars like those used in the WTC trusses." (117/171)
So, if the fireproofing on a component was hit by an array of 0.3-inch pellets, the component was bereft of fireproofing for the purposes of the computer simulation. I am sceptical of this method. Some fireproofing was obviously stripped, but so much?

[Bouvet_Island]

129. Interesting points,

would you care to source your quotes with link and chapters/page #s?

I believe the thickness of the core steel was less the farther up they were, I see this as relevant to your argument about core damage though not a rebuttal to it.

The arguments about the insulation, I think it is relevant and I would certainly like to see more information and data about it. If we are talking about local effect, a relatively small loss of insulation could mean comparatively large difference in the temperature of the steel. You can try with a steel thermos, if you get a bump in it so the inner and outer tubing get contact with the outer, the effect on the temperature of the coffe is larger that what you maybe would think and it is because temperature is transported very fast in steel compared to air. The example isn't directly transferrable, but I believe valid, my point is that damage to fire insulation would not need to be many %s to be significant. Then again, if they need way too much of it to be gone to have the building go down, it is suspicious.

I am generally skeptical to Nists model, that they managed to get the same hole isn't a stamp of approval in my opinion as they would have to use ideal and uniform values for strengths, and WTC was not a new building so I doubt that for example welding was on modern standards. I think they were good, but not uniform. Wind load and other accumulating stresses are not uniformly distributed, and I mean, after it wen't into the building and things started to jump around I am just very skeptical that you could say anything besides general statements like "the core took damage" or "if this happened, it would fall down".

I do some 3D graphic work and so I have some basic experience with physics solving of crashes. The complexity and the uncertainties of that crash, it would seem to me that you would maybe get a good hole that I would be willing to accept, but the sequential impacts and vectors down the lane from there I wouldn't pay much money for. I think they did what you do in graphical effects, you make something that works and look real, and it doesn't by itself indicate either coverup or a solid case for "no possible assistance to the collapse", again in my opinion.

[Kevin Fenton]

136. Discussion of NIST reports

According to NIST, the main reason the North Tower fell was the fires and I look at this claim in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x53444

According to NIST, the main reason the South Tower fell was the impact damage and I look at this claim in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x53264

There is also the matter of how fast United 175 was travelling, which I look at here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x53659

Further, there is the way NIST alters the numbers using "cases", which I look at here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x53680

"I believe the thickness of the core steel was less the farther up they were, I see this as relevant to your argument about core damage though not a rebuttal to it."
This would mean that American 11 was likely to do more damage to the North Tower core, whose columns were thinner on the impact floors, than United 175 was to do to the South Core core.

"If we are talking about local effect, a relatively small loss of insulation could mean comparatively large difference in the temperature of the steel."
Yes, you are right. 100% of insulation does not need to be stripped from a steel member for the fireproofing to become useless. 90% (or maybe even significantly less) would be enough. Nevertheless, the amount of insulation they take away in their model is breaktaking.

"I am just very skeptical that you could say anything besides general statements"
You have a point, but I think that the damage to the outside of the towers is knowable and if a simulation reproduces the outside damage accurately, then this is a plus point for it and means we should perhaps take its assessment of inner damage more seriously than that of a simulation that did not reproduce the outside damage correctly.

It's certainly very hard to say what exactly hit what inside the towers, but I think a reasonably precise determination can be made regarding the core columns, because there were so few parts of the plane that could damage them after it sustained damage passing through the perimeter wall - in the case of United 175 only the fuselage could have severed core columns.

[Bouvet_Island]

149. Nice sumary,

I think then you have me arrested on mixing the two impacts there, great. Still, it is a rather important fact that I feel should not be omitted.

I would hip shoot that for example 50% of isolation gone would mean function at less than 10%, 10% of it gone would mean function around 50%. If someone have real numbers on this, I'd appreciate it.

I think that a relative match of the outside damage isn't as I stated a stamp of approval. If they for example missed the structural strength of the plane by 10% in their case, and picked their candidate based on which gave a good hole, then the noise in subsequent calculations will soon reach around 100%. As you say, the impact speed is likely wrong in NISTs model. Getting a good hole with wrong speed would be an example of a poor qualifier to a damage scenario.

I mean the model can serve as illustration that a scenario can be thought out that would have the towers fall down, and also scenarios can be thought out that don't have them fall down. But to use this as if the model is close to reality and can determine a case with small percentages the one way or the other, I am very skeptical of the merit of such a method. Basically I am saying that if the Nist model sucks and is made to fit, then we can't use it in an argument for controlled demolition. With intact and new structures, it is a different matter.

Do any of you know what error margins Nist operate with?

About the core columns, my opinion is that a quite imprecise call can be made, I doubt the vectors are established to error margins below a few degrees each way and it seems to me you have to establish a sequence where error in the first calculation will "breed" like rabbits. It also seems the collision objects aren't "dumb", that stress moves around and could possibly weaken or strengthen columns to impact. The same goes for the fuselage, I imagine it a very interesting task to correctly model the deformations present in the fuselage when it reaches the columns. I mean with a sufficiently low margin of error to be able to evaluate the deformations of the columns, with very little reference material. I'd rather like to try and make sauce bearnaise blindfolded outta panicked whole chicken and cows, really.

[Kevin Fenton]

153. Point of criticising NIST report

"I would hip shoot that for example 50% of isolation gone would mean function at less than 10%, 10% of it gone would mean function around 50%. If someone have real numbers on this, I'd appreciate it."
I don't have real numbers. I think that for a hip shot, that's not bad.

"I mean the model can serve as illustration that a scenario can be thought out that would have the towers fall down, and also scenarios can be thought out that don't have them fall down. But to use this as if the model is close to reality and can determine a case with small percentages the one way or the other, I am very skeptical of the merit of such a method. Basically I am saying that if the Nist model sucks and is made to fit, then we can't use it in an argument for controlled demolition."
(1) Very true.
(2) The model shows the collapse would have initiated, not that it would have continued. One of the main arguments is that it would not have continued
(3) The reason I criticise the NIST model is that opponents of explosive demolition will point to the NIST report and a reasonably detailed response is then needed to show that the NIST report has holes. I'm not suggesting the NIST report proves explosive demolition or is evidence for it, I'm merely arguing that the NIST report doesn't prove the towers collapsed "naturally".

I don't know what margins of error NIST operates with. They could well be different for each parameter. Some stuff is relatively easy to determine, like the number of perimeter columns severed, some is much harder. The amount of combustibles was increased by 25% in the severe cases, which seems a pretty big margin for something that should be determined relatively precisely.

As you point out, determining the precise number of core columns severed or heavily damaged is next-to-impossible, but a range of, say, 0-4 for each tower would probably cover it.

[Bouvet_Island]

154. Nice,

on a strategy note what you say about Nists uncertainties in models should be pinned, and translated to english.

Eg. if their MOE can be shown to be over like 15%, in about any science or horse race this is not excellent, they are then objectively "not very sure" that their model works.

[reprehensor]

77. Is the Prof recording this on Audio or Video?

We need an A/V knave, stat!

[Prof Jones]

157. Seminar at BYU on WTC 7 collapse and other 9-11 anomalies

Yes, I did present a seminar on the puzzling collapse of WTC-7 and other 9-11 anomalies, on 9-22-05. Sorry I don't have time to post very often, but this from an email I sent out to colleagues on 9-23-5:

Approximately 50 were in attendance, with representatives from the following Brigham Young University and UVSC (Utah Valley St. College) departments:

Physics, Civil Eng., Mechanical Eng., EE, Geology, Psychology, Mathematics. There were several I did not recognize, so other departments were probably represented also. I’ve had particularly encouraging comments from four Physics Profs. and a Math Prof especially, and one of the psychology profs., himself an active democrat...



As you can imagine, there was considerable hostility especially at first. A lot of questions – which I fielded throughout the presentation.

The EE Prof. emailed me before the seminar that this was all “conspiracy theory” and “claptrap.” However, he did – to his credit – look at the website referenced in a previous email, which is Jim Hoffman’s site. <http://911research.wtc7.net/sitemap.html>



During the seminar, it was clear he -- and many others -- were coming around. He admitted that the collapse of WTC 7 was VERY strange, very hard to explain as due to fires. And he’s reading up on all this now.



We started just after 3 pm and had to quit at 4:55 pm as there was a class coming in at 5 pm. One or two left at about 4 pm, when I had covered most of the WTC7 material, but I was pleased that most of the group stayed and we carried on for NEARLY TWO HOURS. Many favorable comments were received afterwards and this morning. People were impressed by the DATA and my critiques of the FEMA and NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.



The most “hostile” was a geology professor. He raised the point that “the Twin Towers were a special case since hit by jets.” Fortunately, I had previously shown a slide discussing “Pathological Science” – and this business of “special case” is one of the red flags for bad science. (I’m well known around here for being among the first, if not the first, to debunk claims of Pons and Fleischmann in 1989.) And he had to admit that WTC7 was NOT hit by a plane.



The approach I took was that we need to have data released (not destroyed, as were most of the steel beams) – and an independent investigation conducted. This was the approach also encouraged by Prof. Weyland – thanks, Jack – it worked extremely well. My goal was clear, and all except one (the geology prof.) agreed with my conclusion that data held by NIST, etc. should be released – and an independent investigation conducted. And several in the group are now doing some investigation on their own – climbing the learning curve.



The next day <9-23-05>, this geology Prof. told me privately that he hoped I could get the information for further investigation. I’m particularly after a sample of the molten metal found in the basement of WTC7 (also in the basements of the Towers).



The tilting of the South Tower was also intriguing to many, squibs from the North Tower less so – but I spent most of the time on WTC 7. Also, the letter of Kevin Ryan carried weight evidently, along with protests about the destruction of the steel beams. My slides on Pathological Science were very useful in countering claims of the "official" theory.



That’s it for now.
Oh, you’ll notice in my talk an appeal to the Book of Mormon – which speaks over and over about “secret combinations”, “secret plans”, “secret societies” in the “last days.” This provided a means to overcome the barrier of “conspiracy theory nonsense” with this group. Won’t work for everyone, but this really is something we Mormons believe in and watch for….



Best Regards,

Steven E. Jones

[pox americana]

158. Thanks for updating us!

Best wishes for success in the infinitely important and courageous work you are doing. Any comments, thoughts, observations or reports you have time to provide are welcome and appreciated here!

[petgoat]

159. Thank You Dr. Jones

In connection with your interest in a molten metal sample, a related
issue is discussed in the FEMA report, appendix C. Steel analyzed by
three researchers at Worcestor Polytechnic Institute (Barnett,
Biedermann and Sisson) showed extreme sulfidative attack.

Here's a report at the Journal of Metals about it:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

And here's the FEMA report:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

It ends with a call for further research which AFAIK was never done.

[Tobias]

174. WRONG.... B. Chertoff IS NOT a cousin of M. Chertoff

See here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html

[Sinti]

175. Why should anyone take what the above site says as gospel truth? n/t

[Debunking911]

176. You shoudn't take anyones site as gospel truth

Especially Jones or the 911 conspiracy community which have errors and wild assumptions on just about every point. As an example, Jones used Hoffman's "Pyroclastic flow" assertion to make a point about the BLOBS in his paper. First of all the photo he uses is photoshopped making the gray dust look lighter. But more importantly Hoffman says the dust was a pyroclastic flow. Pyroclastic flows are 212 degrees F, (Or 100 C)or above. Was anyone poached on the spot? Did anyone complain of burning air? NO. This is just plain fantasy.

The civil engineers in Jones's own university say hes wrong. They aren't just keeping there mouth shut for fear of the government. They are actively coming out against him.

They can get Tucker Carlson to put him on but they can't get a single civil engineer to agree with him. That should tell you a little something about him.

[mirandapriestly]

177. Anyway that PM article

does what is all to familiar to us on DU, the old Straw Man it attributes false arguments to researchers and then attacks them. Plus, it says that there was only one intercept of errant aircraft before 9/11

There are only 58 Chertoffs (plus those who are unlisted) in the entire US (I checked "people search"), so it seems likely that they are related, that is not very many. He would have good reason to lie about it, Homeland Security only exists because of 911 and if a relative wrote a slanted article about it that would be pretty bad.