The fact that even a cardboard box shows more resistance to floors falling from above should be a cause of concern to you, considering that the real deal was steel not cardboard. In any case, you are free to label anyone a 'nutjob', but I personally prefer to discredit people's work, not simply slap a label on them and think I've won the argument.
9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
The fact that even a cardboard box shows more resistance to floors falling from above should be a cause of concern to you, considering that the real deal was steel not cardboard. In any case, you are free to label anyone a 'nutjob', but I personally prefer to discredit people's work, not simply slap a label on them and think I've won the argument.
I think there's evidence on the during part, and I know there's evidence on the after part. Here's Headspin's words on it:
**********************************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2056139&postcount=1532
Steven Jones has made it clear that there weren't just signs; there was a chemical fingerprint of it. All they had to do is what Steven Jones did. But they didn't. They're not even interested in -talking- to him after he did the research. Why do you suppose that is?
A few things: Jones was a meticulous researcher. No BYU professor ever accused him of 'dodgy methods' as far as I know.
As to why they fired Jones, the answer to me is obvious: he was the leader of the professors who were questioning the official theory. All you have to do is take a look at the following web site and see all the professors who looked up to him:
http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4
Nothing like taking out a leader of a movement to get everyone else to quiet down for a while.
That statement has been dealt with thoroughly by Robert Moore, who was NIST Deputy Director for Administration (Safety and Facilities) (and perhaps still is, not sure) and NIST Advanced Measurement Laboratory Program Director (he still is that- http://aml.nist.gov/information/projdirectory.html). This is the first time I have actually found someone in NIST who has conclusively said something against the official story; it's nice to know they don't all keep their mouths shut when evidence goes against the official story :
********************************************
In question 12 NIST states that, “Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.”iv Now, bear in mind that NIST admittedly did not test available WTC steel samples for “explosives or thermite residues.”v Therefore, NIST’s above response seems more of a rhetorical answer to a hypothetical set of facts regarding the use of thermite. So, I will also address the use of thermite in hypothetical terms, as it is the scientists who must test the material (to the extent it still exists) for such substances. It is the scientists who must review and interpret the data.
The operative word used by NIST in their answer to question 12 regarding “duration for cut” is the word “can”.vi This is not a parsing of words. NIST states that thermite “can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.” In actual fact, thermite also “can” cut through a structural steel target material in less than one second.vii Moreover, there are at least two devices that have the capability of cutting through steel in a matter of fractions of a second.viii
Next, in NIST’s hypothetical, they state that the thermite would “need to have been somehow held in direct contact” with the target material (In this case, we are referring to structural steel). Here the operative words are “need to have been.” NIST claims that thermite must be held in direct contact with structural steel in order for it to slice through it.x
Does thermite have to be held in direct contact with structural steel in order for it to react and slice through the target material? No. To the contrary, an apparatus developed in 1999-2001 actually requires that the nozzle of the linear thermite cutting apparatus be at a “controlled stand-off” distance from the target material.” The term “stand-off distance” is defined as having the elongated nozzle positioned “generally adjacent” to a target material to be cut.xii The term “generally adjacent” is further defined as requiring the nozzle to be approximately 1/16 inch to 1⁄4 inch away from the target material (depending on the thickness of the material to be cut).xiii Moreover, the “somehow held” aspect of NIST’s statement is readily dealt with in available patents.xiv The ease that such devices can be attached to a target surface is quite evident, and can be accomplished by various conventional means.xv
NIST also raises the issue of inconspicuous placement of thermite in their hypothetical. NIST intimates that such surreptitious placement of hypothetical incendiaries would not be possible. Although the issue of inconspicuous behavior is not a scientific matter, the patents do suggest accommodations for ease of deployment in the field .xvi
NIST next states that ignition of the apparatus would likely be by remote. Assuming NIST’s claim regarding remote detonation is correct, it seems that various embodiments of the linear thermite cutting device do address NIST’s concerns quite admirably. For example, the device patented in February 2001 indicates that conventional fuses from “Pyrofuse Corporation in Mt. Vernon, N.Y.” may be utilized as the activation device and can be accessed for remote ignition.xvii
So as can be seen, NIST (in an apparent effort to “debunk” some sound questions surrounding the WTC disaster) has created an unnecessary mystique around data and technology--much of which has been available for over half a decade. Rather than dismiss such data, NIST should test available steel samples for residues of thermite and other anomalous substances.
********************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...stions-Regarding-Thermite-by-Robert-Moore.pdf
Last edited:
The man who published a paper about jesus traveling to America is known for his meticulous research?
Where did you hear he had this reputation?
It doesn't matter how much spin you try to put on it, he was put on paid leave because he was pushing out faulty theories which physics and engineering department disagreed with and he was suspiciously avoiding the relevant process. In doing so he was affecting the reputation of his university.
Many people, scientists and non scientists alike, have religious views that strain credulity. Atleast one can say that he investigated his beliefs. While I myself am skeptical of his claim that Jesus visited America, I, like many others, simply aren't all that interested in whether he did or not (or whether he even existed as an actual person instead of being created out of many myths). If Steven Jones had been subjected to the amount of criticism on his "Jesus visited America" belief (Steven Jones is a Mormon and this is what Mormons believe), he might well have left the Mormon belief system. But as I believe most people are like me and just don't -care- all that much if someone called Jesus did or did not visit America, perhaps this is why this belief of his has survived intact (as far as I know). What happened on 9/11 is, in my view, quite different.
This is the guy who challenged a professor emeritus from the University of California, Berkeley on a theoretical point and 7 years later, after determinedly continuing with his research, getting published in Nature magazine. This is the guy that many professors looked up to, including some of the Architects and Engineers on the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth" (513 and counting- http://www.ae911truth.org/), as well as professors in his university and elsewhere, as can be seen here:
http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4
I notice that you haven't said a word about all the statements from the mysterious mechanical engineer with government contacts who was emailing him and the BYU staff shortly before elements of the university administration turned against him and briefly put up statements criticizing his work (they were taken down after protests were made about those statements). I must admit I'm curious as to why you haven't addressed this...
I believe you are referring to the following statement posted at the web site of the BYU Fulton College of Engineering and Technology from November 2005 to April 2006, when it was removed without explanation (I have a hunch the pressure on them to remove it by the likes of Professor McGinn was getting too much for them to handle). It was made shortly after it had probably become clear to the mechanical engineer with 'government contacts' that Steven Jones simply wasn't going to back down. I will quote the statement:
"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."
The statement was shot down by Professor McGinn:
**********************************
[Comments by Prof. Richard McGinn]: "Notice the form it takes. It undermines Jones' hypotheses with a hand-wave about academic procedure. No mention of the substance of Jones' work.
"Another problem of the statement: The Physics Department at BYU, which ran its own version of the offending statement on its web site last [autumn], was persuaded to take it down following a letter-writing campaign. Yet the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology continues to run the statement, including the surprising contention that "Professor Jones' own department" remains unconvinced. Well, is this true or not? Why did the Physics Department remove the offending statement from its own site? Did they have a change of heart, or did our letters merely induce the chair to stop harassing a faculty member, from a sudden burst of collegiality?
"It would really, really help if we could find ways to get engineers and scientists to focus on the substance of Professor Jones' hypotheses." Richard McGinn
**********************************
Professor McGinn also sent a letter to the Dean of the university. Soon after he sent it, the statement was taken down, as well as the statement made above.
**********************************
6. [Letter from Prof. McGinn to the Dean of the BYU Fulton College of Engineering and Technology, March 27, 2006]:
March 27, 2006
Alan R. Parkinson, Dean
Fulton College of Engineering and Technology
270 CB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
Dear Dean Parkinson,
I am writing to you both as an individual and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (ST911.org). At issue is a statement posted on the Engineering College’s web site that is harmful to the career and reputation of BYU physicist Steven Jones.
The web site makes three questionable statements. First, it implies that Dr. Jones’ in-progress research into the physics of the 9/11 attacks in New York has not yet been subjected to a relevant and sufficiently rigorous peer review process.
Second, it states without substantiation: "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." If they really mean this, the engineers should defend the official FEMA and NIST reports which Jones challenges, giving specifics.
Third, it names Dr. Jones’ own department as complicit in all of this, and in particular, that the Physics Department is "not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
I hereby request the Engineering College to remove the offending statement from its web site. At the very least, the College should remove the reference to Dr. Jones’ home department on the basis of the following, new, information. One of Dr. Jones’s research papers ["Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"] has undergone relevant and sufficient peer-review, and has been accepted for publication in a book to appear later this year, titled "9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" (Northampton, Mass: Olive Branch Press, 2006), edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott. In fact, as you may know, this paper had been peer reviewed for a publication by Elsevier Press. But after the stated concerns about "rigorous technical peer review," the paper was withdrawn and submitted to a different publication and peer reviewed again. One of the editors, while maintaining anonymity of the reviewers, disclosed that four PhDs reviewed this paper, two of whom were physicists (and thus peers). Notably, even before the fact of this forthcoming, peer-reviewed publication, BYU’s Physics Department revised its own web site last fall, removing its reference to Dr. Jones’ in-progress research. Therefore, as a first step, it behooves the Engineering College to follow suit, and to remove the following passage from the web site:
"Professor Jones' 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."
There are additional reasons for deleting the unprofessional and unethical statement. First, although I am not a member of American Society of Civil Engineers, I am permitted, according to the ASCE code, to lodge an ethics complaint against an engineer. (The ombudsman for formal complaints to ASCE is: tsmith@asce.org).
Second, no dean has the right to represent individual faculty, much less the entire faculty of BYU’s Engineering College, on the issue of whether they do (or do not) "support" a colleague’s research, whether published or in-progress. The offending statement is a breach of collegiality, and seems as well to infringe upon Professor Jones’ academic freedom.
Most poignantly, it is inconsistent with the code of ethics of the American Society of Civil Engineers, by which you, as dean of the Engineering College, are bound, given that your web site claims to represent the opinions of an entire faculty of BYU engineers. The ASCR Code states in part:
"CANON 5.
g. Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injure the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another engineer or indiscriminately criticize another's work."
If members of the College disagree with Dr. Jones' assertions in his paper that the official FEMA and NIST reports are inadequate as they stand, then they should be specific in their reasons for supporting those reports, neither of which provides (routine) visualizations for finite element analyses.
Sincerely yours,
Richard McGinn
(Richard McGinn's email address)
CC: ASCE Ombudsman
AAUP Committee on Academic Freedom
[The web-statement by the Engineering College was soon removed.]
**********************************
Last edited:
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
April 09, 2006
Dear Editor,
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).
I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.
The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.
Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.D. Allan Firmage
Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU
Also
Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
No the physics and engineering departments were quick to make it clear that they disagreed with Jones and this methods.
Last edited:
I could give a rat's ass about Jones' credentials.
For me..It's all common sense. I understand the motive for Muslim extremists to attack our country...they saw us as a "Clear and Present danger" to their way of thinking...and they were right...America is a threat to an extreme Muslim way of life. They wanted to hurt us as badly as they could...and one of them came up with the brilliant idea that a commercial aircraft full of fuel for a cross-country flight makes a damn good weapon.
They found a chink in our armour and utilized it to their benefit.
On the other hand...I cannot come up with a reasonable motive for the US gov't to want to bring down buildings in New York. There are far easier way to accomplish the same goal. As example in Iraq...want to go to war with someone?...just claim they have WMD...it was good enough to start the war in Iraq.
The question is "Who benefits?"
For me..It's all common sense. I understand the motive for Muslim extremists to attack our country...they saw us as a "Clear and Present danger" to their way of thinking...and they were right...America is a threat to an extreme Muslim way of life. They wanted to hurt us as badly as they could...and one of them came up with the brilliant idea that a commercial aircraft full of fuel for a cross-country flight makes a damn good weapon.
They found a chink in our armour and utilized it to their benefit.
On the other hand...I cannot come up with a reasonable motive for the US gov't to want to bring down buildings in New York. There are far easier way to accomplish the same goal. As example in Iraq...want to go to war with someone?...just claim they have WMD...it was good enough to start the war in Iraq.
The question is "Who benefits?"
It serves as a fine example of Jones' shoddy and biased work. You can keep pretending that it doesn't matter but it shows he has a history of writing papers full of conclusions based on poor reasoning.
I will take your word on it because I am not interested enough to read it. It becomes irrelevant because even if he was considered a meticulous researcher once, his papers on jesus and 9/11 have completely changed that.
I haven't read them.
Well how long should it stay on the site? You are seeing everything as suspicious.
Not shot down at all. Read my posts.
It is clear that the people at the Uni who understand the subject far better than Jones did disagreed with him. He avoided the correct process with his poorly formed opinions and was causing grief for BYU. So he was put on paid leave. It is no mystery. I don't know why you think this is such an important point. Jones being put on leave has no bearing on his sloppy research which is mindlessly repreated by conspiracy theorists everywhere.
Considering the fact that a NIST director Robert F. Moore disagrees with NIST's conclusion that there is no need to see if thermite was used, I find this rather amusing. But perhaps he was uninformed of this NIST director.
I'm not sure which report Allan Firmage read, but he didn't address the following issues that Steven Jones brings up:
***************************************
I also agree with Kevin Ryan’s objections regarding the NIST study. Kevin Ryan, at the time a manager at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), makes a point of the non-collapse of actual WTC-based models in his letter to Frank Gayle of NIST:
"As I’m sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year… they suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team… I’m aware of UL’s attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests… indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by… burning [jet fuel, paper, etc.]." (Ryan, 2004)
That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:
"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11." (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)
So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for very “severe” cases, called cases B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.
Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of their Final Report:
"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…(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)"
Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse”, thus ignoring any data from that time on.
"The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. …(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)"
What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at ALL the data, without computer simulations that are “adjusted,” perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome.
***************************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones, middle to end of point 12.
You have forgotten the point at hand. You are trying to imply that the acedemics at BYU were behind Jones when clearly that was not the case.
"resulting structure was similar to a tube" - curious given that most of the load was supported by the central column interconnected structure. The general characterisation is "tube within a tube".
how very...."disturbing". Where did they put the robes and pitchforks?
I am not following this so if i may be mistaken but reading that last line in the quote above means that he is stating that he(the writer) is the one with 57 years experience.
.. and I don't think he was trying to discredit his colleague. He was trying to make it clear that he disagreed with him.I am not following this so if i may be mistaken but reading that last line in the quote above means that he is stating that he(the writer) is the one with 57 years experience.
None of which are professors from the engineering or physics department...
I said there were some who were behind him. It certainly seems the majority weren't, particularly the professors with more appropriate qualifications.
No. He was being far too polite. Of course inaccuracies\misunderstandings like this (57 years experience) is how technical analysis goes awry and conspiracies get perpetuated by laypeople.
Last edited:
but not misinformation perpetuated by engineers and official documents right?
Any comment on the engineers inaccuracy "The resulting structure was similar to a tube" which lead him to denounce Jones work? Mekatron's misunderstanding can be forgiven as the sentence can be read two very different ways according to where one places a comma in the sentence. Can the engineer's error be forgiven? does it not suggest ignorance of the buildings structure? The engineer's inaccurate misunderstanding is being perpetuated and used by those who wish to discredit and persecute a scientist for political reasons who has sacrificed considerably in search of the truth.
Didn't the original retracted statement read something like "Jones work will be of delight to those in pakistan and afghanistan", this seems to have little to do with science and more to do with politics.
- Status