BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave

[Freddie Stubbs]

Copyright 2006 Deseret Morning News
By Tad Walch
Deseret Morning News


PROVO — Brigham Young University placed physics professor Steven Jones on paid leave Thursday while it reviews his involvement in the so-called "9/11 truth movement" that accuses unnamed government agencies of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center.

BYU will conduct an official review of Jones' actions before determining a course of action, university spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said. Such a review is rare for a professor with "continuing status" at BYU, where Jones has taught since 1985.

Jones was teaching two classes this semester, which began Tuesday. Other professors will cover those classes, and Jones will be allowed to continue to do research in his area of academic study, Jenkins said.

Jones became a celebrity among 9/11 conspiracy-theory groups after he wrote a paper titled "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?" The paper was published two weeks ago in the book "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" and lays out Jones' hypothesis that the three towers fell because of pre-positioned demolition charges — not because of the planes that hit two of the towers.

more: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199800,00.html

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. Hah.

Jones, also known for his cold fusion research,

Jackass.

(Edit: C&P'ed the wrong thingy)

[petgoat]

16. Have you got something against science?

What's your specific criticism of Dr. Jones's cold fusion research?

Jones wasn't part of the that carny Pons and Fleischmann team.

[MrPrax]

50. No...

but if you read further in his wikipedia entry ;-)


Jones has written a paper entitled "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America" in which he used archeological evidence to support the claims of Joseph Smith Jr. (founder of the Latter Day Saint movement) that Jesus had visited the Native Americans after his Resurrection, an event chronicled in the Book of Mormon. The evidence pointed to is Mayan depictions of deities which have stigmata like markings on their hands.<6>
Wikipedia

More on his theory can be found at the link

Several years ago, an idea popped into my head: Would people in the New World who also saw Jesus Christ leave memorials of this supernal experience by showing marked hands of Deity in their artwork? So I began a search with the following hypothesis-to be tested: Ancient artwork portraying a deity with deliberate markings on his hands will be found somewhere in the Americas. A crazy idea, maybe - but wait till you see the artwork of the ancient Maya!

Thank you yibbehobba for the heads up...

Certifiable flake...(but I still don't believe the official story provided by the OTHER certified flakes currently holding office)

[petgoat]

76. "Certifiable flake..."

Oh horseshit. I suppose if a philosopher wrote a paper proving the existnece of
Santa Claus, or a biologist proposed questioned whether the Easter Bunny represented
a new genus or a new species you'd say the same thing?

[MrPrax]

79. But...

You can clearly 'see' Santa Claus DOES exist!!! ;-)

[MervinFerd]

128. Yes, a philosopher who thinks he has proved the existence of Santa Claus

would be a "Certifiable Flake".

There are quite a few of them out there in tenured positions.

Are you saying that 9/11 CTs are on the same level as Santa Claus?

I'll go along with that.

[mirandapriestly]

136. If he were Jewish and wrote a paper supporting

the old testament would you ridicule him? Wow I love seeing how the "progressives" come out of the woodwork to support the suppression of the first amendment rights of individuals. Sometimes this feels more like a conservative message board.

[Bolo Boffin]

181. If that paper was in support of creationism

or the people mentioned in Genesis as actual people? Absolutely.

Jones is a right wing conservative nutcase. I really get a chuckle out of your comments that DU "feels more like a conservative message board" because we spank conservatives for their nutcase conservative beliefs.

And who said anything about violating his First Amendment rights? He's free to say any crazy fool thing he wants, and often does. And we are free to ridicule him for that, and you are free to decry our ridicule of him. Yay, First Amendment!

[mirandapriestly]

300. bullshit.eom

[Name removed]

213. Deleted message

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

[mirandapriestly]

301. The point isn't the validity of the material, the point is

the idea that it is OK to slander someone for their beliefs. But you seem to have a hard time understanding distinctions of that nature.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

324. How are his first amendment rights violated?

BYU is a private university. They get to control what the professors say, just like Skinner gets to control what gets posted here at DU.

[mhatrw]

215. Yes. All Mormons believe a bunch of "crazy" things.

Or did you have some another point?

[petgoat]

289. So do all Christians. Let's all bash Dr. Griffin for his theology. nt

[bobbieinok]

321. maybe he had to write such stuff about Mormon doctrine to be

promoted, get a raise, whatever.....BYU is the major Mormon university

[Fridays Child]

2. That should tell us that the 9/11 Scholars are on to something.

Someone at the very highest level has demanded that he be "disciplined." It's a matter of time before people like Professor Jones start disappearing.

[greyl]

4. No, it shouldn't - not unless horrible logic should be our guide. nt

[Fridays Child]

44. History's name for this administration should be "Horrible Logic."

Or maybe "Dastardly Logic."

[greyl]

46. Yes, but that has nothing to do with Jones or the illogic

of your previous post.

[Fridays Child]

49. Unfortunately, my post is quite logical.

I believe that these people will do WHATEVER it takes to remain in power, including permanently silencing critics and whistleblowers.

[greyl]

56. Sadly, it isn't.

It's Hasty Conclusion/Questionable Cause.

The fact that someone gets put on paid leave, does not indicate that the movement he was a part of was "onto something".
Mind you, that fact alone isn't a sufficient condition to conclude that he wasn't onto something either.
There are many other reasons to support that idea.

[Fridays Child]

62. Sadly?

Your position is certainly less pessimistic than mine. In any case, you're applying reality-based thinking, here. We now live in Bushworld™, a place where my premise is, sadly, neither hasty nor questionable.

[greyl]

68. You said "unfortunately" so I used "sadly". No big woop.

Maybe one day we can do the fortunately" v unfortunately rif like John and Yoko, but seriously, your original statement was devoid of logic.
Now, your statement that it's unquestionable only adds more bad logic.
Fortunately, you noticed that I was applying reality-based thinking here. ;)

[TAM]

72. So I guess then....

ah yes...I guess that is why the three young boys who are the largest reason why the "Truth" movement is even recognized (Dylan, Korey, and Jason, of Loose Change) are still alive, and able to promote their movie and make money off the whole thing...right?

TAM

[Fridays Child]

86. They can hardly be considered...

...a mainstream-based source of information, like Prof. Jones. And do you actually know a) how much money they've made or b) whether they've been subjected to any threats?

[TAM]

96. Not relevent...

Anyone who denies that "Loose Change" is the biggest force behind the 9/11 "Truth" movement in terms of recruitment, is in denial themselves.

As to the comments on "money raised" and "death threats", it is not relevent to my points, which were (a) They are not dead, and (b) they have made money off the sale of their DVDs (I wonder if they reported their earnings to the IRS?).

TAM

[Fridays Child]

110. Sorry, you're wrong. It is relevant. And remember...

...the "Check Spelling" button is your friend.

[TAM]

115. No to the point I WAS MAKING..., oh, and...

Nice, juvenile attempt to belittle me. But please, teach me how to spell. I need to be taught oh please, oh please.

:)
TAM

[petgoat]

130. Complete horseshit

If the fact that the Loose Change guys are still alive is believed to prove
there is no conspiracy, then any competent conspiracy would have funded the
Loose Change guys itself!

[LARED]

162. Does that mean you think the Loose Change sophists

are in reality disinfo agents?

[petgoat]

290. Who cares what an anonymous poster thinks?

I showed the faulty logic of the meme that "Avery's continued
tenancy on this earth proves there's no conspiracy."

[OldSiouxWarrior]

325. The Princess Bride, Vizzini poison scene???

You said:

"If the fact that the Loose Change guys are still alive is believed to prove
there is no conspiracy, then any competent conspiracy would have funded the
Loose Change guys itself!"

Yes, but then people would reason out that the competent conspiracy was letting them live, so the competent conspiracy would have to kill them.

But then people would suspect they had been killed so the competent conspiracy would have to have them live. But the conspiracy may want people to think they are incompetent and therefore not a conspiracy so they kill them, or was it let them live? Damn, I have lost count. Where was I? Was it a competent posing as incompetent conspiracy...

BTW, If you haven't seen it, rent the movie. It was great fun.

[woo me with science]

220. Yes, it is VERY SCARY!

The government is trying to KILL them!

They will kill ANYONE who speaks the TRUTH!

Probably it is not even safe to be on this MESSAGE BOARD!

You are VERY BRAVE!!!!!!!!

:yourock:

[Ka hrnt]

89. LOL! Nice. EOM.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

6. Mhmm...

t's a matter of time before people like Professor Jones start disappearing.

In cases of alien abduction, no doubt.

[greyl]

9. Btw, you must have missed that some "Scholars" are defecting:

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones

[Katzenjammer]

63. Have you read it? They think Jones is too conservative in his paper!

They apparently don't like his cautious phrasing.

That doesn't seem to support the idea you're trying to promote.

[Fridays Child]

65. They sure don't seem to be disagreeing that it was an inside job.

Apparently, they disagree only on the "how" but not on the "who."

[Katzenjammer]

67. Indeed! I was startled to read how vehement they are, especially

after being led down the garden path by greyl's totally inapposite comment.

[Ka hrnt]

88. Or it could just be...

...he's a huge embarassment for BYU, and they'd like to make it look like they're doing something about him. I assume he has tenure, which means there's little they can do; don't get me wrong, I think I tenure is a very good thing. Unfortunately, when it comes to frauds and weirdos like Churchill and Jones, respectively, it protects them too and the universities can do little but hope the problem goes away. (Mind you, the overwhelming evidence of Churchill's case allowed them to fire his fraudulent butt.)

[mirandapriestly]

137. That is what I thought, It also makes me think that those who

split with him may be untrustworthy. I was thinking, hmm which one is not to be trusted, the only think about Jones was how could he keep his job while doing this? Now, I see he is for real.

[greyl]

3. Wow. Score one for the Mormons.

They're kind to keep paying him.

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. I don't think it's out of kindness

Tenure is more likely.

[greyl]

7. You're probably correct. nt edit:

See what I get for trying to be nice? ;) I should have checked it out first, eh?

re:

maddezmom
8. from the article...BYU doesn't have tenure

:shrug:

/edit

[maddezmom]

8. from the article...BYU doesn't have tenure

:shrug:

[petgoat]

18. All this one-liner dissing should tell is the Scholars are on to

something.

Read (and sign) their petition for the release of suppressed evidence here:

http://www.st911.org/ (click "beginner" in the blue bar, select 2d item)


Here's the direct link: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399

[MervinFerd]

33. No it shouldn't.

It tells us that even an Academic institution has a limited tolerance for embarrassing bullshit.

[Katzenjammer]

41. Why don't you explain to us what parts are "bullshit" and why,

citing the physical laws that Jones fails to account for.

You'd be doing us all a service. I'm eager to hear how the pancaking floors managed to avoid conservation of momentum plus destroy the center backbone as they went.

[mhatrw]

216. Yes it should.

Just saying.

[NoodleyAppendage]

10. I wonder if they will actually pay attention to his evidence?

Jones presents evidence that must be refuted. But, I suspect that regardless of his evidence to support his claims they will trump up something to fire him. This is nothing but an attempt to silence critics.

And, I thought college was intended for "free thinking," how stupid of me...

J

[greyl]

11. They've seen it, and they don't buy it.

It's something some of us have been repeating over and over.
From the article:

"BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones' work on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues," the university statement said.

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "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 College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

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.
<snip
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

http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e

edit:bolding

[electron_blue]

13. As a physicist, I'm also unconvinced

I went to his website, read his articles. He makes many mistakes in his physics assumptions, that makes me wonder how he came to BYU in the first place. His work would not hold water in any refereed journal.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

15. Who knows...

What area of physics does he actually study?

[petgoat]

22. Would a list of publications help?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/atomic/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm


REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS



Steven E. Jones, Lee D. Hansen and David S. Shelton, Discussion of reply to "Examination of claims of Miles et al. in Pons-Fleischmann-type cold fusion experiments," Journal of Physical Chemistry, 102 (April 30, 1998), p. 3642-8.

Lee D. Hansen, Steven E. Jones and David S. Shelton, "A response to hydrogen + oxygen recombination and related heat generation in undivided electrolysis cells," J. Electroanalytical Chemistry, 447 (1998) 223-226.

D.S. Shelton, L.D. Hansen, J.M. Thorne and S.E. Jones, "An assessment of claims of `excess heat' in `cold fusion' calorimetry," Thermochimica Acta 297 (1997) 7-15.

Steven E. Jones and Lee D. Hansen, "Examination of claims of Miles et al. in Pons-Fleischmann-type cold fusion experiments," Journal of Physical Chemistry, 99 (1995) 6973-6979.

J. E. Jones, L. D. Hansen, S. E. Jones, D.S. Shelton, and J. M. Thorne, "Faradaic Efficiencies less than 100% during electrolysis of water can account for reports of excess heat in `cold fusion ` cells", Journal of Physical Chemistry, 99 (1995) 6966-6972.

Steven E. Jones, David S. Shelton, R.Steven Turley, M. Jeannette Lawler and David D. Allred, "Raman Spectrographic System for Quantitative Analysis of Isotopic Hydrogen Mixtures for Muon Catalysis Experiments," Hyperfine Interactions 101/102 (1996) 695- 698.

S.E. Jones, L.B. Rees, and W.E. Dibble, "Post-Use Review. Physics for Scientists and Engineers," Am. J. of Phys., 63(2), 188-189, Feb. 1995.

S. Taylor, T. Claytor, D. Tuggle, and S. Jones, "Search for neutrons from deuterided palladium subjected to high electrical currents," Transactions of Fusion Technology, Vol. 26, 180-185, Dec. 1994.

S.E. Jones, S.F. Taylor, and A.N. Anderson, "Evaluation of muon-alpha sticking from liquid, non-equilibrated d-t targets with high tritium fractions," Hyperfine Int. 82 (1993) 303-311.

S.E. Jones, "Cold Fusion," Forum For Applied Research and Public Policy, Winter 1992, 94-97.

S.E. Jones, "Current issues in cold fusion research: Heat, helium, tritium, and energetic particles," Surf. and Coat. Tech. 51 (1992) 283-289.

S.E. Jones, F. Scaramuzzi, and D.H. Worledge, eds., "Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems," Brigham Young University, October 1990, American Institute of Physics: Conference Proceedings 228, NY (1991).

S.E. Jones, et al., "Anomalous Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter: Recent Results and Open Questions," J. Fusion Energy 9:199-2091, (November 1990).

H.O. Menlove, M.M. Fowler, E. Garcia, A. Mayer, M.C. Miller, R.R. Ryan, and S.E. Jones, "Measurement of Neutron Emission from Ti and Pd in Pressurized D2 and D2O Electrolysis Cells," J. Fusion Energy 9, 1990 (November 1990).

A. Bertin, M. Bruschi, M. Capponi, S. De Castro, U. Marconi, C. Moroni, M. Piccinini, N. Semprini-Cesari, A. Trombini, A. Vitale, A. Zoccoli, and S.E. Jones, J.B. Czirr, G.L. Jensen and E.P. Palmer, "First Experimental Results at the Gran Sasso Laboratory on Cold Nuclear Fusion in Titanium Electrodes," J. Fusion Energy, 9, 1990. (November 1990)

J.D. Davies, J.B.A. England, G.J. Pyle, G.T.A. Squier, F.D. Brooks, W.A. Cilliers, A. Bertin, M. Bruschi, M. Piccinini, A Vitale, A Zoccoli, S.E. Jones, V.R. Bom, C.W.E. van Eijk, H. de Haan, A.N. Anderson, M.A. Paciotti, G.H. Eaton and B. Alper, "A Direct Measurement of the Alpha-Muon Sticking Coefficient in Muon-
Catalysed d-t Fusion," J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 16, 1529-1537, (1990).

S.E. Jones, D.L. Decker, D.H. Tolley, "Response to Biases in Cold Fusion Data," Nature 343: 704 (1990)

J.D. Davies, G.J. Pyle, G.T.A. Squier, A. Bertin, M. Bruschi, M. Piccinini, A. Vitale, A. Zoccoli, S.E. Jones, B. Alper, V.R. Bom, C.W.E. Van Eijk, H. de Haan, D.H. Craston, C.P. Jones, D.E. Williams, A.N. Anderson, G.H. Eaton, "Search for 2.5 MeV Neutrons from D2O Electrolytic Cells Stimulated by High-Intensity Muons and Pions," Il Nuovo Cimento 103A (1), 155-161 (1990).

A. Bertin, M. Bruschi, M. Capponi, S. De Castro, U. Marconi, C. Moroni, M. Piccinini, N. Semprini-Cesari, A. Trombini, A. Vitale, A. Zoccoli, S.E. Jones, J.B. Czirr, G.L. Jensen and E.P. Palmer, "Experimental evidence of cold nuclear fusion in a measurement under the Gran Sasso Massif," Il Nuovo Cimento 101:
997-1006 (1989).

S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker, G.L. Jensen, J.M. Thorne, and S.F. Taylor & J. Rafelski, "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter," Nature 338: 737-740 (1989).

S.E. Jones, J. Rafelski, and H.J. Monkhorst (editors), Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 1988, Proceedings of the Muon-Catalyzed Fusion Workshop, May 1-6, 1988, Sanibel Island (co-sponsored by Brigham
Young University and University of Florida at Gainesville), AIP Conf. Proc. 181, New York, 1989.

S.E. Jones, "Survey of Experimental Results in Muon-Catalyzed Fusion," Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 1988 (S.E. Jones, J.Rafelski, H.J. Monkhorst editors), AIP #181 (1989).

M.A. Paciotti, S.E. Jones et al., "First Direct Measurement of - Sticking in dt- cf," Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 1988 (S.E. Jones, J. Rafelski, H.J. Monkhorst editors), AIP #181 (1989).

K.A. Aniol, A.J. Noble, S. Stanislaus, C.J. Virtue, D.F. Measday, D. Horvath, S.E. Jones, B.C. Robertson and M. Salomon, "Muon Catalyzed Fusion in HD and H2 + D2 Gaseous Mixtures." Muon-Catalyzed Fusion, 2: 63-72 (1988).

R. Gajewski, and S.E. Jones, "A Look at Muon-Catalyzed Fusion Research in the United States," Muon-Catalyzed Fusion, 2: 93-102 (1988).

A.J. Caffrey, S.E. Jones, et al., "Muon-Catalyzed Fusion Experiments at LAMPF," Muon Catalyzed Fusion 1: 52-66 (1987).

M. Leon, O.K. Baker, J.N. Bradbury, J.S. Cohen, H.R. Maltrud, M.A. Paciotti, L.L. Sturgess, A.N. Anderson, J.M. Harris, S.E. Jones, A.J. Caffrey, C.DeW. Van Siclen and K.D. Watts, "3He scavenging as a Source of Information in Muon-Catalyzed d-t Fusion," Muon-Catalyzed Fusion, 2: 231-237 (1988).

J. Rafelski and S.E. Jones, "Cold Nuclear Fusion," Scientific American, 257: 84-89 (July 1987).

S.E. Jones, "Update on muon-catalyzed fusion research at LAMPF," Invited talk at the Symposium on Muon-Catalyzed Fusion, 1-3 September 1986, Tokyo, Japan; muon-Catalyzed Fusion 1: 21-28 (1987).

K. Nagamine, T. Matsuzaki, K. Ishida, Y. Hirata, Y. Watanabe, R. Kadono, Y. Miyake, K. Nishiyama, S.E. Jones and H.R. Maltrud, "Muonic X-ray Measurement on the Sticking Probability for Muon Catalyzed Fusion Liquid d-t Mixture," Invited to talk at the Symposium on Muon-Catalyzed Fusion, 1-3 September 1986, Tokyo, Japan; Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 1: 137-159 (1987).

S.E. Jones, "Can 250+ fusions per muon be achieved?," Invited talk for Erice School-Workshop, Erice, April 3-9, 1987, New York: Plenum Press, 1987, pgs. 73-88.

S.E. Jones, "Muon-Catalyzed Fusion Present and Future," Scientific Papers of the Institute of Physical and chemical Research, Tokyo, Japan 80: 17-29 (1986).

S.E. Jones, "Muon-Catalysed Fusion Revisited," (Invited article) Nature 321: 127-133 (1986).

S.E. Jones, "Summary of the Mini-workshop on Muon-Catalyzed Fusion," (S.E. Jones, Chairman) Fusion Technology 10: 157 (1986)

S.E. Jones, A.N. Anderson, J.N. Bradbury, A.J. Caffrey, J.S. Cohen, P.A.M. Gram, M. Leon, R.L. Maltrud, M.A. Paciotti, C.D. Van Siclen, and K.D. Watts, "Observation of Unexpected Density Effects in Muon-Catalyzed d-t Fusion," Physical Review Letters 56: 588-591 (1986).

C.D. Van Siclen and S.E. Jones, "Piezonuclear Fusion in Isotopic Hydrogen Molecules," Journal of Physics G. Nucl. Phys. 12: 213-221 (1986).

S.E. Jones, "Engineering Issues in Muon-Catalyzed Fusion," Fusion Technology, 8: 1511-1521 (1985).

S.E. Jones, "Some Surprises in Muon-Catalyzed Fusion," Invited talk at the Ninth International Conference on Atomic Physics, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., 23-27 July 1984 in Atom Physics 9, R.S. Van Dyck, Jr. and E.N. Fortson eds., Singapore: World Scientific, 1984, pgs. 99-115.

S.E. Jones, "Muon-Catalyzed Fusion," Physics Today, S-44, (January 1984). (Reprinted from Physics News in 1983, Phillip F. Schewe, editor.)

S.E. Jones, A.N. Anderson, A.J. Caffrey, J.B. Walter, K.D. Watts, J.N. Bradbury, P.A.M. Gram, H.R. Maltrud, M. Leon, M.A. Paciotti, "Experimental investigation of Muon-Catalyzed d-t Fusion," Physical Review Letters 51: 1757-1760 (1983).

S.E. Jones, A.J. Caffrey, J.B. Walter, A.N. Anderson, J.N. Bradbury, P.A.M. Gram, M.Leon, M.A. Paciotti, "Experimental Investigation of Muon-Catalyzed d-t Fusion," Third International Conference on emerging Nuclear Energy Systems, Helsinki, Finland, June 1983, Atomkernenergie/Kerntechnik 43: 179-183 (1983).

A.E. Kreymer, P. Bonamy, B. Barbason, H. Paik, N. Baggett, C. Baglin, E.C. Fowler, D. Hood, T. Fieguth, M.S. Alam, S.E. Jones, J.S. Poucher, A.H. Roger, S. Stone, "Forward Low-mass Enhancement in p - Seen in Reactions in - d (ns) p -n and -d (ps) p - -," Physical Review D 22: 36-41 (1980).

C.W. Bjork, S.E. Jones, T.R. King, D.M. Manley, A.T. Oyer, G.A. Rebka, Jr., J.B. Walter, R. Carawon, P.A.M. Gram, F.T. Shively, C.A. Bordner, and E.L. Lomon, "Measurement of - p - + n near Threshold and Chiral-symmetry Breaking," Physical Review Letters 44: 62-65 (1980).

M.S. Alam, S.E. Jones, R.S. Panvini, J.S. Poucher, A.H. Rogers, S. Stone, T. Fieguth, N. Baggett, C. Baglin, E.C. Fowler, D. Hood, A.E. Kreymer, P. Bonamy, B. Brabson, H. Pak, "Search for Charge -2 Mesons in the Reaction -d (ps) X- -pforward at 13.2 GeV/C," Physical Review Letters 40: 1685-1688 (1978).

[TAM]

74. Alot of his previous articles, what about the one in question

Interesting...beyond the cyberjournal that he and Fetzer invented, "The Journal of 9/11 Studies", is his monumental paper on Thermite and the tower collapse published in any "Peer Reviewed" Scientific Journal? Show me one, please, just ONE.

[petgoat]

21. A physicist should support his assertions of mistakes in

another physicist's assumptions with reference to specific mistakes
and specific assumptions.

How he came to BYU is quite clear: He got a BA in physics from BYU magna
cum laude, earned a PhD at Vanderbilt University based on research he
did at Stanford, and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and
the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Your lack of enterprise in satisfying such a simple curiosity brings
into question your diligence in analyzing Dr. Jones's mistaken
assumptions.

As God, I think your post doesn't hold water--but at least I'll explain
why I think so.

[Make7]

122. Can you make a rock so big that you can't pick it up? ( n/t )

[petgoat]

124. I can make a rock so big I need to augment my powers to

pick it up. It's like computers. Every two years I have to upgrade.

[Katzenjammer]

34. Why don't you identify those "many mistakes"?

And tell us why they're mistakes and what he should have done instead. I'm sure we'd all be interested.

[electron_blue]

105. Eh. I've done it before. And at DU, too. It's probably archived

I got really curious when I first heard of him, so I looked into his work. It just falls apart from the start.

As for his degrees, I'll add that I have seen some people with PhD's in physics do solid work in the beginning and then fall apart mentally down the road, which is what he reminds me of.

[electron_blue]

108. Okay I found the link for you, where I discussed this earlier

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=55542&mesg_id=55595

[mirandapriestly]

138. not very impressive.eom

[Katzenjammer]

167. Sorry, all I see is handwaving

The seismic record shows big activity for about 9 seconds, which coincidentally would also be the ideal speed, but the news videos appear to show (dust prevents precise timing) that it took somewhere in the range 15-20 seconds, which also conforms to the total seismic record (ca. 17 secs).

In the pancake theory each collapsing floor was knocked loose by the floor above and then accelerated by gravity onto the floor below it. However, there are only what...15 feet?...between floors, so gravity didn't have much room to work. It had to accelerate each new floor from a standing start. How long does something take to drop 15 feet? The standard calculation is 32 ft/sec, so in the first second something ideally drops 32 feet, or 15 feet in the first 0.5 second (since it's accelerating, the first 15 feet takes longer than 0.5 second, but we'll give it a break).

A half-second per floor for 75 floors says the collapse should have taken 33 seconds minimum. But that minimum assumes that each intact floor offered zero resistance to being torn loose, and we have no reason to suppose zero resistance.

So what we see is that even the most trivial, generous calculations leave us with a situation that doesn't work as advertised: the collapse took only about half the theoretical minimum time that would be required by the OCT.

The only way to get the building down in half the theoretical minimum time is to start all floors moving independently, and nearly at the same time. But those floors were intact and undamaged, so what got them moving?

[Make7]

175. the Law of Conservation of Momentum

"There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I'll briefly explain how these principles work. Let's assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was."

Dave Heller, Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center

- Make7

[melnjones]

305. How do cars in neutral

compare to modern steel structures in terms of conserving momentum? I have little science background, but I'm trying to understand how what you posted relates and I'm not getting it.

[Make7]

318. It's simply an illustration of the conservation of momentum in a collision

Katzenjammer's scenario of a pancake collapse neglects to include the conservation of momentum as a factor in the time "calculated". When a floor of a building falls onto the floor below it there is a transfer of momentum to the lower floor - which means that the lower floor starts falling with part of the velocity transferred to it by the collision with the upper floor. Similar to how the car in neutral starts moving when another car hits it.

Katzenjammer wrote:

In the pancake theory each collapsing floor was knocked loose by the floor above and then accelerated by gravity onto the floor below it. However, there are only what...15 feet?...between floors, so gravity didn't have much room to work. It had to accelerate each new floor from a standing start. How long does something take to drop 15 feet? The standard calculation is 32 ft/sec, so in the first second something ideally drops 32 feet, or 15 feet in the first 0.5 second (since it's accelerating, the first 15 feet takes longer than 0.5 second, but we'll give it a break).

A half-second per floor for 75 floors says the collapse should have taken 33 seconds minimum. But that minimum assumes that each intact floor offered zero resistance to being torn loose, and we have no reason to suppose zero resistance.

He/she said, "It had to accelerate each new floor from a standing start." The way this "calculation" was done completely omits conservation of momentum as a factor. The floors below the initial collapse would start falling at a rate faster than would be caused by gravity alone since there was additional velocity imparted by the collisions of the floors above them. Therefore, assuming that every floor would take the same amount of time as the initial floor to collapse to the floor below it is simply a mistake.

He/she also said, "But that minimum assumes that each intact floor offered zero resistance to being torn loose..." The car in neutral is similar to the "zero resistance" assumed in his/her scenario.

- Make7

[longship]

231. Talk about handwaving!

I've never seen so much handwaving as is in your post.

I'll point you to some energy and momentum transfer calculations so that you can delve into this more deeply.

Bazant, et. al.
www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

Dr Frank Greening articles
--------------------------

WTC Report
www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Energy Transfer Addendum
www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

Critique of NIST Report
www.911myths.com/NISTREPORT.pdf

WTC Thermite
www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

Tipping of the Upper Section of WTC 2
www.911myths.com/WTC2TIP.pdfn


There are many other academic reports on 9/11. I cite these because they are the most accessible of them, using less technical mumbo-jumbo. If you want more in-depth studies, Google's your friend.

[dailykoff]

235. Right you are. 911myths is nothing BUT handwaving.

Very perceptive.

[longship]

240. Bollocks!

Don't act ignorant. Read the damned papers!
Or, is the math too much for you? If so, I suggest that you stop commenting on the topic.

[dailykoff]

242. I've read them.

Fascinating exercises in self-delusion.

[longship]

244. Do the energy and momentum transfer calculations work, or not?

I can't wait to hear this.

[dailykoff]

246. Which ones? Specifically. (n/t)

[longship]

249. You're the one criticizing it!

Waiting...
:popcorn:

[dailykoff]

250. If you're talking about the Bazant paper, yes, it's total crap.

A lot of impressive-looking handwaving based on temperatures that were never reached and buckling that never occurred to explain a pancaking effect that was impossible.

Next? :popcorn:

[longship]

252. I'm talking about the Greening paper(s).

They are the ones which do the momentum and energy transfer calculations and come up with the collapse times consistent with observations. They also establish that the towers could collapse via catastrophic failure without demo charges in the observed time frame (debunking a major conspiracy theory premise). Along the way, the energy calculations demonstrate that there is sufficient energy available to reduce the structural materials to the state observed after the collapse (another conspiracy theory premise).

These are rigorous mathematical papers, not the more pedestrian Bazant paper (which BTW *has* stood the test of peer review).

You really haven't read them, have you?

[dailykoff]

253. "Paper(s)," as in you're not really sure how many

or where they are? Why am I not surprised.

Look if you really want to have a discussion about a paper and not just some shill's vague references to it(them), you're going to have to find a specific title and provide a link.

Incidentally, if you think Bazant's paper is so pedestrian, why was it the first link you gave?

:popcorn:

[longship]

257. You *really* haven't read Greenings papers, have you?

Now I'm convinced that you haven't read them. There's five of them.
The first is an in depth analysis of the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 using momentum and energy transfer. It also accounts for many of the objections that you conspiracy kooks are always screeching about. It also gives measurements for the time of collapse that agrees with observations.

One more thing that the paper discusses is it gives an alternate theory for the origination of the collapses which does not depend on high temperature fires in the zones where the collapses began.

If I can take the time to read and view all the conspiracy theory bunkum, you can take some time to read the first Greening paper. It's the same reason I listen to right wingers as well as liberals. I want to be informed so that I can make *informed* decisions. (And no, the right wingers have not convinced me at all about 9/11.)

You might also find Greenings' response to Professor (not doctor) Jones claim on thermite interesting (see WTC Thermite, above)

My comment on Bazant's paper being pedestrian was not to minimize its validity, but only its robustness. Dr. Bazant does not include his calculations, while Dr. Greening does. Regardless, both have passed peer review whereas Prof Jones' has not.

[dailykoff]

260. Hard to say which is more hilarious, Bazant or Greening

but since Greening takes Bazant seriously (what a coincidence, they reach the same conclusion) but takes five times longer to get there, Greening gets the prize.

Basically what he's saying is that since the collapses occurred, there must have been enough damage to initiate them (he cites Bazant's figures here) and "kinetic energy" to keep them going, which by a truly impressive series of bogus assumptions and "estimates" he finds.

It's one big fantasia on a pipe dream showing no awareness whatsoever of the actual construction of the buildings.

Next? :popcorn:

[dailykoff]

261. p.s. I think that's enough pseudoscience for today. (n/t)

[longship]

262. Not even close to a rebuttal.

Gees. You really haven't yet read the article, have you?

Yes, he uses Bazant's E1 (the estimated maximum plastic energy dissapation for the collapse of one floor) in his first, rough estimation of impact energy. However, if you read the very next sentence, Greening says:

...
Unfortunately Bazant, et al. do not give a detailed exposition on how this value for E1 was derived, stating only that it is based on "approximate design calculations" for one WTC tower.

Then, he proceeds to establish the reliability of the value through other paths, and based on other peer reviewed research. His final value of E1 is based not only on Bazant, et al. (which has already stood the test of peer review) but on these other paths, which independantly and using different methodology, just happen to be in agreement with Bazant. That's powerful analysis, my friend. As I said, the paper is internally consistent, which is what one would expect in a published peer-reviewed physics paper.

Then, Greening doesn't stop there. He takes another, entirely different path of analysis to establish his conclusions. He analyzes the collapse from an entirely different tack using data from other sources. The results of this analysis is consistent with the previous. Didn't I say that the document is internally consistent?

Now tell me what's wrong with this paper. Please don't be afraid to be specific. I'm degreed in physics and mathematics so I speak the language. Don't hold back.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

327. Obviously, he isn't able to follow the math.

It is like arguing evolution with a creationist.

[longship]

266. You conspiracy theorists really can't take the heat.

You have your ideology that ChimpCo is so competent that he can pull off the largest, most sweeping conspiracy in the history of mankind. You won't listen to reason, to rational argument, to anything but the lunacy spewed by these kooks who created these conspiracies out of whole cloth. On top of this, you believe all this horse hockey about an administration which has fucked up everything it's touched.

Pshaw! I get weary arguing with ideologues of both the right and the left--people who cannot or will not listen to reasoned, rational argument, those who listen to people without the least skepticism. It makes me sick to see this happen. No wonder Chimp has had such an easy time taking over things. Credulity is severely broken in this country.

I've been a liberal for all forty years of my politically active life, but I've never seen anything like this before from people who are supposed to be intelligent and well-reasoned. It's like some unthinking, robotic lunatics have taken over part of the left political space. I don't like it. You guys hurt everything we've all worked for.

[dailykoff]

282. Gasbags are easily fooled when they want to be. (n/t)

[OldSiouxWarrior]

328. And you have indeed been fooled, because you wanted to be fooled. NT

[Katzenjammer]

285. Isn't it wonderful how choosing the "right" simplifying assumptions

can help one prove their assertions? Or at least make it appear that they have, if the reader doesn't notice. Academic sleight-of-tongue.

I'm thinking here of Bazhant & Zhou's and Greening's assumptions that the fires were hot enough to cause a contiguous section of more than 50% of the structural steel to lose its loadbearing ability.

Eagar and Musso do something similar--they assume a more reasonable fire temperature than Bazhant & Zhou and Greening do, ...but they choose to assume that the aircraft were carrying 90KL of fuel each instead of the ca. 40KL others estimate based on the flight plan, allowing them to assume a burn time more than twice as long.

The fact is that all these guys are "fitting their data to their hypothesis".

It's rather interesting to think about the tilting top of bldg 2. If we look at the videos, we see that the fulcrum is the far edge. But when we think about the construction, it gets very hard to understand why the center core didn't interfere with that tilt. A simple thought experiment is enough to show that it would bind the edges of the included floors and completely prevent the tilting we see ---unless something cut that section of core loose from the rest of the core below it. What could do that to such a massive array of structural steel?

[electron_blue]

258. None of the BYU profs energy and momentum calculations work.

What he has posted is crap. If you have something better, I'd really like to look at it. What name, in your opinion, has the best work showing how, physically, the WTC towers could not have collapsed from jet impacts alone? If jet impacts could not have brought them down, it'll come out in the physics and engineering calculations.

My mind is not made up either way - I'd just like to see something more substantial than the drivel Jones has put out. Jones just hurts the cause of investigating what brought down the towers. Well, he gets a lot of attention, so maybe that helps the cause, but his physics calculations are either never revealed, or, the ones that have been are wrong. And wrong at such a basic level that other scientists are not taking him seriously.

[longship]

259. Read the first paper from Dr. Greening

Those are the momentum and energy transfer calcs of which I wrote above:

In this post (above):
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=114064&mesg_id=114645

[electron_blue]

307. Thanks for the link

I'll take a look at it.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

326. Did you flunk physics???

You DON'T have to accelerate each floor from a standing start.

You start the drop with 20 floors falling to hit the first floor, 15 feet below. That will take almost a full second. But that floor will not stop the 20 floors. (I shall assume that each floor is of equal mass.) That floor has on 1/20 of the mass of the floors hitting it. The momentum of 20 floors will be transferred into a mass of 21 floors (there will be some minor loss of kinetic energy to heat due to tearing of the metal supports, crushing of concrete, etc.) So now you have 21 floors, but with the momentum of 20 floors, so the mass will have been slowed by about 5%. Gravity gets to speed the total mass up for the next 15 feet. That is well more than enough to make up for the 5% loss. In fact, during that second drop of 15 feet, downward speed, and therefore momentum will increase by about 40%.

By the time you get to 50 floors hitting the 51, you will get a 2% reduction in speed by the 51st floor, and gravity gets another 15 feet - well more than enough to make up for the 2% loss.

[mhatrw]

218. I should have known.

I have far, far more potent objections to NIST's studies, starting with physical evidence that in no way supports their core assumptions.

[mhatrw]

217. Please discuss further.

"I'm a physicist, and I disagree but I don't have time to tell you why" is nothing but a weak appeal to your supposed personal authority.

[Katzenjammer]

26. That looks a lot like "One Hundred Nazi Scientists Say Einstein Is Wrong"

Remember Einstein's response? "If I were really wrong, it would only take 1 scientist".

It's the same thing here with the faculty non-support and that elderly civil engineer. If Jones were really wrong, it would only take 1 scientist to refute him because they could explain away using well-understood physical law the virtually complete dissolution of the buildings, including those monster backbone columns, and the buildings' apparent failure to conserve momentum during their collapse.

Notice that nobody has offered any such refutation--they're all either ad-hominem attacks or magical, hand-waved "explanations", notably the amazing ability of that jet fuel to burn optimally hot under totally non-optimal conditions, and the pancaking of the floors that somehow also destroyed the backbone columns and met essentially zero air resistance.

And as to his not being published in the "right" journals, Thomas Kuhn had something to say about that in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

[greyl]

42. So, the fact that more than one has refuted him

you see as evidence that Jones is correct? Good grief.

The problem is that Jones hasn't published his work in the appropriate scientific venues(authentic peer review) for the refutations to matter to the scientific community any more than his paper does.

[Katzenjammer]

48. No, *NOT EVEN* one has refuted him. Big difference.

Nobody has done more than attack him personally or make crap complaints about not publishing in the "correct" journals.

Refutation requires that they explain away, citing accepted physical law, the anomalies he has pointed out, for example the disappearance of the backbone and the failure of the hypothesised pancaking floors to meet resistance from the floors under them.

If they don't do that it's not refutation, it's "One Hundred Nazi Scientists" all over again.

[greyl]

52. That's not true. Would a Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering

count for you? (I don't see how it couldn't, because Jones isn't an engineer and you're appealling to his authority)

http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e
http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm

[Katzenjammer]

60. Not one who regurgitates what he (apparently) doesn't understand

I quote:

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.

Note that he ignores the ENORMOUS, MASSIVE backbones, instead describing the buildings as "similar to a tube". Which is he, ignorant or crooked?

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.

"It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C . This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire."
(Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society,53/12:8-11 (2001))

[Make7]

179. Do you agree with the conclusion in that paper by Eagar and Musso...

... regarding the effects of the fires on the steel?

- Make7

[Katzenjammer]

230. I agree that the canonical safety factor is 3 or 4

Which means that buildings are made 3-4 times more sturdy than the expected loading would require. They could withstand stressors 3-4 times greater than the maximum expected.

Whence the repeated statements by experienced people that the buildings should never have collapsed. The damage was simply not significant enough.

[Make7]

232. Perhaps I should have been more specific.

Do you agree with their conclusion that there was a failure of the steel that was caused by the fires?

- Make7

[Katzenjammer]

254. No, I don't agree with that conclusion

I see no support for their claim that the 90KL of kerosene heated enough of the steel to overcome its sinking ability and cause deformation sufficient for collapse. The damage was localised. It would have required the best part of 2 adjacent sides to be deformed that way, and the damage simply wasn't that extensive.

They also claim that nobody could have or should have expected "a 90,000L Molotov cocktail", but that makes no sense (and not only on the relatively but not completely trivial ground that nobody would use cool-burning kerosene in such a device unless forced to--in which case they wouldn't expect much from it). Anyone who designs for aircraft impact is incompetent if they don't remember that some aircraft are tankers that carry much more than 90KL. There's no reason to believe that the architects and structural engineers were incompetent that way.

[Make7]

303. Yet you selectively quote to imply they didn't reach such a conclusion.

Here is what you posted (emphasis mine):

"It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C . This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire."
(Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society,53/12:8-11 (2001))

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=114064&mesg_id=114188

And here is what the paper actually said (emphasis mine):

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.⁴ This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

4. A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 6-62 to 6-70.

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

It appears to me that you are selectively quoting the article to give the impression the the authors reached the exact opposite conclusion than the one they did reach. What you quoted leaves the reader with the implication that the authors believed that the fires would not cause failure of the steel, when in fact their conclusion was that the fires actually did lead to its failure.

- Make7
I know you lifted that quote from Dr. Jones.

[Katzenjammer]

314. In law it's called a "statement against interest", and is more believable

than a self-serving statement. So when they say the fire wasn't hot enough, even though they conclude (by handwaved assertion, you'll note--they offer no evidence for their "this produced...buckling failure") that it somehow WAS hot enough, it's completely legitimate to quote only the part with which they unintentionally impeach their own conclusion.

The design center of the building included the ability to easily ("it would be like poking a hole in a screen with a pencil") withstand impact and the conseqent fuel fire from a 707, an aircraft only slightly smaller than the 767 that did hit it. The 767, despite the implications of its model number and the talk of "jumbo jet", is much more like a 707 than it is a 747. So anybody trying to claim that it didn't withstand it needs to have their ducks completely in a row, something Eagar and Musso didn't (and to be fair to them, they did say that they're speculating, with "if...then" disclaimers at critical points).

[Make7]

319. What I find interesting about the part that you selected to quote.

Katzenjammer wrote:

"It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C . This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire."
(Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society,53/12:8-11 (2001))

First, maybe you should have also taken out the words "by itself". That would've made your assertion that "they say the fire wasn't hot enough" slightly more believable.

What I truly find interesting is that you seem to accept the excerpt above even though "they offer no evidence" for their claims about the stresses involved that day or what the design actually would allow. What was it that you called that? "Handwaved assertion". I guess if the handwaving works in your favor it's acceptable.

- Make7

[petgoat]

57. Those refs are silly, greyl.

Dr. Firmage offers his opinion without having read the NIST report, and after reading
only a summary of the FEMA report. He cites the temperature at which steel weakens
and neglects to mention that there is no evidence that the WTC steel reached that
temperature. He appears to believe some form of the zipper theory, and to be unaware
that the NIST report repudiates that theory. Some expert.

Dr. Miller's objections are so vague as to be meaningless.

If these people want any credibility ascribed to their views they should address
specific points. As it is, their statements are embarrassing to their cause.

[greyl]

59. I don't think so.

petgoat: Dr. Firmage offers his opinion without having read the NIST report

He offered it after reading Jones' paper. His comment was on Jones' paper, not the NIST report.

petgoat: If these people want any credibility ascribed to their views they should address
specific points.

If Jones wanted credibility ascribed to his views, he should have submitted his work for authentic peer review like so many people have been asking him to do.(except for CTists for some reason.)

Why don't you guys lobby Jones to submit his work for peer review and save his job?

[petgoat]

61. His authority for trashing Jones's paper was his reading of a

summary of the FEMA report. He thus didn't even have the basic
knowledge of current understanding of the issues. He did not
address any specific failings of Jones's article, but only
relied upon the obsolete and tarnished authority of the
descredited FEMA report.

Some expert!

It is very difficuly to recruit people for peer review because
it's a time consuming and very responsible and thankless task.
If you want the peer review, why don't you round up some reviewers?

[greyl]

69. Whatever. Jones was put on paid leave because

of his lousy paper and irrational attitude. You arguing with me won't change that.
It's up to Jones to submit his work to the analysis of the scientific community in order to try to regain some measure of credibility.
(but, I'd bet he won't ever do that.)

[Katzenjammer]

71. No, he was put on paid leave because BYU didn't want to lose grants

because of BushCo reprisals.

Any physicist could refute his claims--if physics supported them rather than him. His paper is right out there for all to read. Formal peer review is not a sine qua non, it's a cachet.

[greyl]

77. Now you're psychic?

C'mon. Did you arrive at that reasoning for his paid leave following the same brand of logic you use to put Jones on an unexamined pedestal?

People without any bit of college education could refute his claims, I tell you.
It's been done.

[Katzenjammer]

81. No more so than you are, I suppose.

I think I have Occam's Razor on my side, however, since nobody has challenged his physics, and we have plenty evidence that people who speak inconvenient truths suffer reprisals.

[greyl]

82. Oh lordy. Occam's Razor isn't in your town.

BYU issued a statement as to why they put him on paid leave.
The statement was prefaced over the past many months with other statements from his peers and superiors at BYU that his paper didn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Occam's Razor does not say that he was put on paid leave because there's a government conspiracy.

[Katzenjammer]

91. Do you believe every self-interested statement someone makes?

Is it even possible, in your worldview, that BYU's statement might not reflect the truth about their motivation?

As to people having made "statements...that his paper didn't stand up to scientific scrutiny", why don't you cite their refutations. Pick the ones that actually have substance, though. You know, with citations of exactly the points on which Jones is wrong and why. If there aren't any like that, though, don't bother citing handwaves, because they're worthless. Can we count on you providing those pointers? Because if we can't, then your statements are worthless, too.

[greyl]

93. That would be ridiculous.

The links I've provided should keep you busy.

But, for the sake of argument: How many points is the minimum you'd require to consider the possibility that his paper may be misleading bullshit?

[Katzenjammer]

94. The links you've provided are to rubbish, as two of us have pointed out.

I even provided a citation to a PEER-REVIEWED journal article.

As to how many points...try just the two about why the backbones disintegrated, and why the collapse happened in free-fall time, ie, with essentially no resistance at all from the undamaged 80% of the buildings. If you can do those in a credible way, BushCo will probably make you the new head of FEMA.

Remember, though, that your explanations have to hang together as a coherent whole.

[greyl]

150. I don't want to deal with your "backbone" questions at the moment.

I feel they're a bit of a red herring. I don't think Jones' paper is crap because of anything to do with "backbones".
I'll ask again, how many points is the minimum you'd require to consider the possibility that his paper may be misleading bullshit?

[Katzenjammer]

169. I'm sure you don't want to--but reality requires that you do so (nt)

[greyl]

222. Is 10 a good number for you? nt

[Katzenjammer]

224. I've already stated what you need to explain, thanks

If you can't do it, then own up.

[greyl]

225. Define what You mean by "backbone". nt

[Katzenjammer]

226. The massive arrays of core structural steel.

The ones that, if the pancake theory held any water, would simply have stood there as the donut-shaped floors slid down them like shower-curtain rings around a vertical pole.

[petgoat]

127. The statements from peers and superiors, as I pointed out,

were extremely ignorant as to the facts.

Your inability to recognize this is somewhat puzzling.

Occam's Razor does not say that he was put on paid leave
because there's a government conspiracy.

Absurd straw man.

And your metaphor about Occam's Razor is muddling, not enlightening.
Are you suggesting that no one in the poster's town can use Occam's razor
even a little bit?

[petgoat]

125. And your evidence for this is what?

If anyone in the scientific community wants to comment on his paper, they can
do so online, or publish a rebuttal on the internet--or, for that matter in
a scientific journal.

No one has published a peer-reviewed paper refuting Jones.

No one would come forward 9/16 to debate Jones.

[longship]

151. There cannot be peer review until it is submitted to peer review.

One does not do this by throwing it up on the Internet. Physics operates with more rigorous methodology. There are many refereed journals which would love to publish 9/11 papers. Any number of studies would be of interest. There are quite a few papers in the literature already. Many are critical of official conclusions.

If Dr. Jones wants to be taken seriously about this stuff, he needs to follow the procedures so that peers can review his work. Conspiracy theory Web sites are not where normal science takes place. Until he does, he's going to be in trouble with his University and will be a pariah with his peers.

[petgoat]

152. My post had nothing to do with peer review.

It had to do with assertions of a "lousy paper" and irrationality.

If peer-review is so all-fired important, why doesn't somebody
write a peer-reviewed paper refuting Dr. Jones?

Peers can review Dr. Jones's work at st911.org

[longship]

154. As I clearly said....

Nobody has written a peer-reviewed critique of Jones' papers because he's never submitted them for publication. No peer review can happen until he does that.

The reason why he doesn't do that is obvious upon first reading. There's no way that this stuff passes muster. That's why he's not submitted them. If Dr. Jones doesn't like that being said, he can rectify the problem by submitting the papers.

[petgoat]

156. Your reasoning is completely circular. Maelstrom for longship, nt

[longship]

160. You obviously know nothing about what you are writing.

Start educating yourself about this stuff before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

Normal science *only* occurs via publication in refereed journals. This is the only way scientists have to insure that what is published meets minimum standards. What this means is that the data is complete, that the data collection methodology is a valid one and is repeatable, that the analysis is rigorous and contains no mistakes, that all assumptions are valid, that the conclusions are those which follow from the data and the analysis.

Referees are selected randomly from other people in the particular field of expertise and are anonymous to both the original writer(s) as well as each other. The only criteria by which a paper may fail are the kinds of things I listed in the previous paragraph. The referees have a few choices when they have finished reviewing the paper. 1. They can accept the paper as it stands. 2. They can accept the paper conditionally on recommended changes. 3. They can reject the paper but encourage the author to resubmit it upon rewriting it. 4. They can reject the paper outright. Generally, referees try to be accommodating but likely few articles get published without revision.

Note, that there are no rejection criteria for papers whose conclusions the referee doesn't like, or doesn't agree with. Politics is not supposed to play a part in these matters, and generally does not. Likewise, topics are not singled out for rejection based on controversy, whether it be scientific or otherwise. If this was not true, very few scientific advances would be published.

Once a paper is passes the referee process, it is published. Once that happens, other peers in the field can read it, comment on it, repeat the analysis or experiments for themselves, expand on the ideas, etc.

But Professor Jones has not done any of that here. Instead, he tries to do an end around the standard process, drums up lots of controversy because his data is biased and cherry-picked and his conclusions are illogical and faulty, then cries about ill treatment by his peers.

All the man has to do is submit his paper for publication and all of the problems go away. But we all know why he doesn't do that. He *knows* that the paper won't pass muster. He's only doing this for some personal agenda, not for science, and certainly not to find the truth about 9/11.

[dailykoff]

234. Thanks for 7 paragraphs on one talking point. (n/t)

[longship]

243. Just trying to edumacate the ignorant. nt

.

[petgoat]

287. No, you're trying to prove Jones is wrong because he can't

get published.

I guess if you knew anything about science you would have heard
about Copernicus and Gallileo.

Educator, educate thyself.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

330. Unfortunately, you are dealing with the willfully ignorant.

They WANT the CT to be true. If believing in the CT required them to knowingly believe 2+2=5, they would do it and try to convince others of it.

[greyl]

158. petgoat:"No one has published a peer-reviewed paper refuting Jones."

petgoat: "My post had nothing to do with peer review."

[petgoat]

288. So now you're reduced to out-of-context quotes.

Your desperation shows.

The post to which I was referring was post #57.

[BootinUp]

12. Really what did he expect?

The movement he is aiding with his credentials and unscientific unpublished papers is so off track from reality. Lookee at the glowing material in the photo of the burning building it must have been controlled demolition. Absolute nonsense.

[greccogirl]

30. What is truly frightening

is so many Americans appear to believe this claptrap.

[petgoat]

126. Have you read the paper? Have you watched the video?

Is that the best you can do?

[Joanne98]

14. GOD BLESS STEVEN JONES!

[Overseas]

17. Oh my god !! An engineer dared to question The Official Story ?

Shame on him !!

[OldSiouxWarrior]

343. He is NOT an engineer.

He is a physicist, specializing in molecular physics. He has been associated with cold fusion which the rest of the scientific community has discarded as nutcase stuff.

[John Q. Citizen]

344. You are wrong about "cold fusion." You are right about the

"group think" that humans, even scientists, allow themselves to fall into.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0606/p25s01-stss.html

Do some research before you just blindly buy into the "group think," OldSioux. Even scientists are not infallible. Cold fusion is theoretically possible. There is still an ongoing debate. For you to so strongly and erroneously condemn Jones makes you look uninformed about science. Google "cold fusion and learn.

2004 Department of Energy Review
Main article: 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion
In 2004, the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) decided to take another look at cold fusion to determine if their policies towards cold fusion should be altered due to new experimental evidence. They set up a panel on cold fusion. Its 18 reviewers were split approximately evenly on the issue "Is there compelling evidence for power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid states sources", a significant change compared to the 1989 DoE panel. However, several of those who judged that there was unexplained power did not believe that a nuclear reaction had been shown to be the source: two-thirds of the reviewers did not feel that the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reaction, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated that they were somewhat convinced. Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented. The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments in this field. (emphasis mine)<13>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Suppression_of_cold_fusion_research

Suppression of cold fusion research
In June 1990, Gary Taubes, a science writer who has written two books and several articles investigating allegations of fraudulent activity in science, published an article in Science clearly suggesting that researchers at Texas A&M had added tritium to fake their results. After multiple investigations, the university found no evidence of fraud or incompetence. John Bockris, who was then a distinguished professor in physical chemistry at Texas A&M University and a cofounder of the International Society for Electrochemistry, had to appeal to the American Association of University Professors before the harassment stopped.<79>

In 1991, Dr. Eugene Mallove said that the negative report issued by MIT's Plasma Fusion Center in 1989, which was highly influential in the controversy, was fraudulent because data was shifted <80> without explanation, and as a consequence, this action obscured a possible positive excess heat result at MIT. In protest of MIT's failure to discuss and acknowledge the significance of this data shift, he resigned from his post of chief science writer at the MIT News office on June 7, 1991. He maintained that the data shift was biased to both support the conventional belief in the non-existence of the cold fusion effect as well as to protect the financial interests of the plasma fusion center's research in hot fusion. <81>

Cold fusion researchers claim that cold fusion is suppressed, and that skeptics suffer from pathological disbelief.<82> They say that there is virtually no possibility for funding in cold fusion in the United States, and no possibility of getting published.<83> They say that people in universities refuse to work on it because they would be ridiculed by their colleagues.<84>

Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger said that he had experienced "the pressure for conformity in editor's rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous reviewers. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science".<85> He resigned as Member and Fellow of the American Physical Society, in protest of its peer review practice on cold fusion.

[ryanus]

19. I am a BYU alum

Prof. Jones was one of my professors. There is major cognitive dissonance going on in mormon (lds) Utah, including BYU. BYU is often in a hard situation where they try to remain a "church" school that promotes the image of the church and the morals\teachings of the church, but at the same time be competitive in academics. So BYU does not like controversy unless totally backed by the church leadership. So now they have this guy who is saying that practically everyone is being deceived by the Bush Admin. and BYU is kind of stuck, because if they condone what Jones says then it is like the church endorses what he says (which they haven't), but if they axe Jones then it's like they are squashing academic freedom. One could argue that this is what happens when a church runs a school, but I would suggest that right now no group or school wants to be thought of the 9/11 conspiracy school, which is why lots of schools have tried to control their professors regarding 9/11.

What would totally change all this is if the church leadership commented on Jones or 9/11 in a clear way. But if the church were to say that yeah, something is wrong about 9/11, then there are all sorts of fallout that would happen. One would be that a big chuck of Bush's base would face so much cognitive dissonance that they would be in a daze for a week, and two, a schism could develop in the membership. There are a whole lot of mormons in the military and the republican party. This doesn't mean it won't happen (in fact I am just waiting for it).


So the issue regarding Jones I think is bigger than just a "kook 9/11 theory." The unity of the church is a factor.

Just my thoughts and observations.

[Javaman]

20. Thank you for your perspective on this.

It's given me an insight that would have never occurred to me.

[savemefromdumbya]

29. Should then be in general discussion

[jkd]

146. No, it's relevant to this discussion.

I too am an alumnus of BYU, a contemporary of Dr. Jones back in the 60's. I never met him though. BYU had over 30,000 students even back then. He seems like an extremely personable and sincere individual, but perhaps a little bit politically naive.

He has placed himself and BYU in a very tenuous position. I suspect that neither will soon relish the consequences. The BYU administration and indirectly the LDS Church leadership must now speak on the issue. Did secret organizations within the government precipitate 911? I believe it's is now a question that they must answer.

The Book of Mormon is rife with predictions of conspiracies within the government in the last days.(Ether:8 is one of several)

[melnjones]

306. Exactly. nt

[Miss Chybil]

23. And shouldn't such a hypothesis be allowed to be brought to a

conclusion - one way, or another? What country is this again?

[FoxOnTheRun]

24. USSR

But he is a nice Prof and still has its job
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rarxToSfhPw

[Fridays Child]

53. Jesus. Tucker Carlson is a deluxe asshole.

[MervinFerd]

37. That's already happened: Jones lost.

[Fridays Child]

54. He did, huh? How's that?

[MervinFerd]

255. His views are widely distributed; the relevant experts think he's nuts....

You make your case, if it doesn't fly, you go home and shut up or come up with better arguments.

Jones just keeps yapping to his cult audience.

[longship]

161. No matter which country, science has rules.

One of the number one rules is that no scientific finding gets published without going through a vetting process, called refereeing.

It doesn't matter whether you are a Chinese scientist or an American scientist. The rules are the same. Publish or perish.

Publish does not mean throwing a paper up on a Web page. It means submitting it to a recognized refereed journal and having it accepted.

Jones has not done this. He's in deep doo-doo because he's stirred up lots of public controversy for a faulty paper which he apparently has not submitted for peer review. Either that, or he has submitted it, it was rejected and he has refused to correct its mistakes. Either way, BYU has every right to discipline him for putting their good name in jeopardy by associating it with his piece of crap science.

[longship]

25. The problem is his 9/11 research does not pass academic muster.

It won't pass peer review, so he concocts a special so-called journal whose purpose is to disceminate his pet 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is not only poor science, it is anti-science. It's the same thing that the Discovery Institute is doing with intelligent design.

There's no place in proper science for ideological or politically motivated agendas. However, nobody would criticize any scientist who attempts to work within the system, but that's not what Jones is doing here. Without criticizing his papers at all, one can say that by doing an end-run around established scientific procedures he has put his academic career in jeopardy. If he doesn't like it, that's too bad.

[Katzenjammer]

27. Who says it won't pass peer review--you? (nt)

[longship]

36. No. Dr. Jones never submitted it to peer review.

That kind of makes the matter moot, doesn't it.

[Katzenjammer]

51. You seem to be confusing two things

"Hasn't been submitted" is not the same as "won't pass".

If there's something wrong with his physics, nobody need wait before pointing out those deficiences. That can be done at any time. In fact, people routinely clean up their papers before formal review by passing around drafts for comment. Jones mentions that he has revised his paper several times so far.

But nobody has told him "Steve, your analysis is rubbish". You can't find anyone who has challenged his physics. What they've done is say (e.g.) "the center columns went away during the collapse, so there must be a reasonable explanation even if we don't know what that explanation could be. But it definitely was an ordinary event, whatever it was, and not explosives, oh no, never explosives, that's just kooky."

[greyl]

73. Breaking News: Rumsfeld refuses to submit to a lie detector test!"

What would you make of that story? Would you cry "It's because he won't pass!"?
I bet you would.

[Katzenjammer]

78. You seem to be *badly* confused!

The correct comparison is that "Rumsfelt hasn't taken" is not the same as "Rumsfelt won't pass". What I would think of some putative refusal has NOTHING to do with whether he would pass.

[greyl]

83. Some may say that. nt

[Katzenjammer]

92. Yeah. Like anyone with a grasp of logic. (nt)

[longship]

95. Academia holds to higher standards.

Your comments are insufficient. Dr. Jones has put his and BYU's name on a paper which has not passed academic muster. It doesn't matter whether it has been submitted for review or not. It is his *job* to submit such things for review or, failing that, either correct it or withdraw it. There are no other alternatives open to him.

He is not allowed to use the imprimatur of his name, his CV and that of his university alone to foist a fabrication on the world. It really is publish or perish; this is how things are done. A paper which does not stand these simple tests cannot carry the weight of academic credibility. To portray it any other way is not only wrong, it is a matter that carries consequences. Dr. Jones is not allowed to use his name alone (and BYU's) in an authoritative manner.

BYU is doing the correct thing.

[Katzenjammer]

97. You're confused about academia

BYU could legitimately tell him to take it down from their server, but he's at liberty to publish it wherever he likes apart from that. Whether he's also at liberty to include a reference to BYU for identification purposes is a contractual issue. BYU doesn't own him, and not every worthwhile paper gets published. Feynman apparently had a folder in his desk of papers that he'd never bothered submitting.

[longship]

100. It is not that simple.

If Dr. Jones does not publish it in a refereed journal he has no basis to claim its academic validity. Yet this is precisely what is happening with it. People are using Dr. Jones' and BYU's names to claim that Jones' conclusions are valid.

But they are most certainly *not* valid. Dr. Jones' science is shoddy, his data is cherry-picked and misinterpreted, and his conclusions do not reflect that which a reasonable person following normal scientific methods would conclude.

The only way to circumvent these problems is to submit it to academic review. Failing that, the paper should be withdrawn.

Dr. Jones is using his authority to foist a very unscientific paper on the world in a very public way. He is an embarassment to himself, and to his employer. BYU has every right to discipline him.

He has a choice. Get it published, withdraw it, or perish. If I were his Dean, that's precisely what I would be telling him.

[FoxOnTheRun]

99. Bush Jr. went to Yale

So it seems there is something wrong with acadamia in general in the US.

[longship]

101. In science, and especially physics...

There is no appeal to authority. The imprimatur of authority resides solely within the peer review process. No scientist is allowed to use their authority on its own to trumpet a conjecture as theory.

Dr. Jones is making statements of fact which are checkable and reviewable by his peers. He is making pronouncements and stating conclusions. He does not have the right to do this in absense of review.

If he has these opinions, he is perfectly able to publish them any where he wants, but only as Mr. Jones. As soon as he uses Dr. Jones, PhD from BYU, he has crossed a line.

[Katzenjammer]

104. Sorry, but your talking nonsense.

His doctorate belongs to him, not the university. He is entitled to use it wherever he likes. Whether he can identify his employer is a contractual matter.

If people want to impeach his physics, they have a wide-open opportunity to do so. He's not hiding. He doesn't need to submit his paper for publication in order for people to criticise it substantively (which they haven't done) or write rebuttal papers (which they also haven't done). Why do you suppose no one has done it? Why do you suppose it's all been ad-hom attacks and handwaving? If his science is no damned good, then why hasn't someone blown him out of the water? As Einstein said, if he were really wrong it would only take one scientist to prove it.

[FoxOnTheRun]

107. A. Einstein also said

The important thing is not to stop questioning

The Dean of BYU was perfectly OK with Jones, they could keep the pressure for a long time.

[longship]

113. Question? Yes! Bullshit? No!

Dr. Jones' paper is rubbish. The reason it has not been published in a recognized journal is because it could never stand up. He cherry picks data. He makes faulty assumptions and conclusions. He ignores data which is contradictory to his conclusions.

It is one of the most shoddy representations I've seen since I read a some stuff off the Discovery Institute Web pages.

I'm not sure what it is, but it is not science as anyone educated in "what is science" would recognize.

[FoxOnTheRun]

116. Well

the jpeg pictures are a bit low quality and the text formatting wasn't done by a genius.

It's pretty difficult to analyze something when evidence is destroyed, like the steel. He had to get it from memorials.
Also the blue prints of building 7 are kept secret, as far as I know.

[longship]

117. Secret blueprints?

Sounds like more made-up tin foil hat stuff. Do you have a definitive citation for this claim?

It's probably like the "free falling towers".
(See my debunking of this *lie* elsewhere in this thread.)

[FoxOnTheRun]

118. I think the wtc 7 is secret and wtc 1 & 2 are only in master plan form

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

While detailed engineering drawings of the World Trade Center remain unavailable, 9-11 Research has been able to obtain drawings of the MASTER PLAN, dated December 16, 1963.

Maybe you should talk to Kevin Ryan from UL, who got fired.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[longship]

112. Yes, and no.

First, it's "you're", not "your".

Second, I am not talking nonsense.

His doctorate does belong to him. That's true.

But normal science does not recognize the authority of the individual. The sole authority in science is standing up to review by peers. There is no other authority. Scientists commonly make pronouncements of their beliefs about certain repercussions of their theories and similarly make prognastication on what future theories may be like. However, none of these contain any authoritative weight.

It is not up to Dr. Jones to decide whether his conclusions are authoritative. Furthermore, no university, or any other body can give his conclusions the imprimatur of authority. The sole path to authority in science is anonymous peer review.

That's the way things are done.

Some of you around here need to review your science history:
See: www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

[mirandapriestly]

139. Hi longships.eom

[Katzenjammer]

165. Now you're reduced to cheap shots?

Acting as though a typo reveals the inability to "do grammar" is cheap, and says far more about the complainer's level of standards than about the writer's grammatical knowledge.

As to publication, Jones's article is available for rebuttal. It's right out there in the open, anyone can read it, any of his physical science peers can rebut. But nobody has done it.

Journal publication, on the other hand, is gated by politics, and articles falling outside the boundaries of accepted thought typically don't pass review or they remain "in press" until withdrawn. See Kuhn for a discussion of that.

[mhatrw]

219. So what?

Were Steven J Gould's essays submitted for peer review?

You realize that you are attacking academic freedom, right? Why would you want to do that? Why do the unpopular opinions of a single professor threaten you so that you are willing to abandon the principles of academic freedom to silence him?

[FoxOnTheRun]

28. Wasn't it triple peer reviewed?

Interesting times

[MervinFerd]

31. Depends on who his 'peers' are.

[FoxOnTheRun]

32. Is a party membership now required?

[MervinFerd]

35. For academic peer review? Yes--at least a few credentials......

Woo-woos peer-reviewing other Woo-woos just doesn't get the spirit of the whole thing.

Even if the Woo-woos seem to be splitting into multiple woo-woo parties and expelling those who do not follow the curent party line.

Sort of like the old Trotskyite parties: New plan for the Revolution each and every month.

[FoxOnTheRun]

38. This article and it's lies are probably responsible for it

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51540

Editor's note, Aug. 17, 2006: In paragraph four of this column, the author makes an assertion about professor Steven Jones' remarks at a 9/11 symposium broadcast by C-SPAN. A review of the program online evidenced no such comments by Jones.

[longship]

47. That's not how it works.

There is no "scientific party". There are not even any required credentials. Anybody can submit papers to a refereed journal. Students do it all the time. The only requirement is that they pass the referee process. The referees' purpose is to weed out those papers with bad science, like illogical constructions, cherry-picked data, faulty data collection techniques, conclusions which do not follow the data, etc. There are absolutely no political requirements.

Papers are accepted every day which criticize what would be termed "standard theory". That's the *only* way science advances.

If what some people claim here were true, that the scientific establishment is a monolithic entity which eschews criticism by censoring criticism, there would never be any advancements in science. This kind of claim is just so much tin foil hat garbage.

[longship]

45. No, submission to his peers is required.

Dr. Jones is using his credentials to further a political agenda without submitting it to peer review. He has put BYU name on putatively academic pronouncements without fulfilling normal academic requirements for such things.

That's a bad thing and should be disciplined.

[longship]

40. Peers means referees in a recognized scientific journal.

One of two things has happened here.

1. Dr. Jones never submitted his so-called 9/11 research to a refereed journal.

2. Dr. Jones submitted his research but it was turned down.

Either way, it has not passed peer-review muster. So he cannot claim academic standing for it. The use of his academic credentials to further claims and conclusions which do not pass even the lowest level of peer review undermines his academic standing and that of his employer.

BYU was correct to discipline him.

[longship]

58. He doesn't get to decide who his peers are.

In fact, referees are completely anonymous. A referee has no knowledge of who the other referees are. There is no way that they can conspire against a paper. This makes it difficult for a paper to be rejected for "political" purposes.

The extent to which referee process has an agenda is the extent to which there would be no advances in science.

But this is a double-edged sword. An academic cannot use his name, and that of his academic institution, to advance what might be a political agenda without the blessing of peer review.

In other words, it is not what Dr. Jones is claiming that is the problem. It is that he has put his and BYU's names on a putatively academic paper without the imprimatur of any academic check and balance. That is a big no-no.

[moc]

123. Not entirely correct. Blind review is specific to discipline.

I publish in the psych and public health literatures. My reviews are blinded. However, I know of other academics (my father, a retired organic chemist, and an infectious disease epidemiologist are two specific instances) who have told me that many of their journals are not blinded. I was really surprised because I had operated under the assumption for years that blinded review was the standard across the board.

Also, if one has been publishing in a specific literature for a while, often one can tell who the authors are or who the group is based on the sample description, etc. So, blinding isn't always perfect. It is possible for individual researchers to slam another peer in the review process for a reason other than academic merit (academics are human and the egos can be gargantuan, lol). However, the supposition that a whole group of academics would target a single "maverick thinker" without cause is just silly. Anyone who works in the field knows that getting academics to act in concert is like trying to herd cats, lol.

Hope you don't think I'm picking on you. I'm reading through your posts on this thread and you are very on point and very correct on how you describe academic research working. Just this tiny correction on blinded review.

By the way, I had to complete a mandatory ethics training last week for my university (blech!), and there was one section SPECIFICALLY about when I'm allowed to present myself as "Dr. MOC of XXX University". I can only do that when I am presenting myself in relation to work I've done in my official capacity as a University XXX faculty member. That's probably why BYU has suspended Jones pending this review.

Question: Do you know if Jones was tenured?

[MervinFerd]

129. The -relevant- peer review would be the structural engineering journals...

However they handle it--anonomous or not.

Or a general journal like Nature or Science.

Nature, a few years ago, published an article supporting homeopathic medicine. Got roundly criticized for it, but the referrees, apparently, couldn't find any errors in the procedures. They're British, you know.

But this whole debate is absurd. Jones' procedures have errors that are obvious even to a casual observer. He needs to submit to the "Journal of Irreproducible Results".

[petgoat]

140. Baloney. Jones's paper is a physics paper. It's just freshman

physics! You don't need the structural engineering expertise.
That's penny wise and pound foolish!

Jones' procedures have errors

Ah. Mervin Ferd, who has no profile, has submitted his
peer-reviewwed opinion. Name one.

[BootinUp]

43. bingo.

I was writing a post saying that, but yours is better. I second it.

[Nozebro]

39. Any indication of where the "muscle" came from to undermine Jones?

Or, maybe BYU didn't need to be "taken to the woodshed". Maybe they got some kind of reminder about upcoming Gov't grants - and they "understood" what they needed to do, and so they academically "suicided" Professor Jones.

[Katzenjammer]

55. "Maybe they got some kind of reminder about upcoming Gov't grants"

I think that covers it very nicely. It's also why political hot potatoes often can't get published in major journals...the reviewers can never be guaranteed real anonymity, and they know how much their integrity can cost them.

[Nozebro]

64. And OCT'ers pretend to be perplexed why more profs. don't risk their

academic careers (or worse) by daring to question the "Osama bin Laden did 9/11" fairy tale.

[file83]

66. BINGO. You nailed it.

One of the most common responses I get from OCT'ers is: "If there was a conspiracy, why haven't more people come forward?"

Jones: Case in point.

[petgoat]

141. Not to mention Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Kevin Ryan,

Indira Singh. Don't these OCT know-it-alls know anything?

[greyl]

70. Straw argument. I don't know anyone who is perplexed about that

except for CTists. It's the OCTists who have suggested a few ways for a civil or structural engineer to bring "the trooth" to light. One obvious way, is to submit it anonymously like DeepThroat.

Can you think of reason why nobody is going that route? I can. It's because there's no science to controlled demolition hypotheses.

[Katzenjammer]

75. "there's no science to controlled demolition hypotheses"

Really? Why don't you explain what happened to the massive backbones, then. If the pancake hypothesis is correct, the backbones should still have been standing. So what happened? Be sure to cite appropriate physical laws.

And after you've explained that, try explaining why the undamaged 4/5 of the building offered no more resistance to the impact of the "pancaking" floors than air would have done. Again, cite physical laws in your explanation.

As Feynman said after Challenger: "Nature cannot be fooled".

[Carefulplease]

98. Resistance to the falling mass...

The core columns can not stand withought lateral support. The collapse of the massive upper section removed the lateral bracing of the columns. Still, sections of the core about 50 storeys high stood for a few seconds after the bulk of the towers had collaped to the ground. This is clearly seen on some videos.

Also, it is just not true that the lower portion of the towers offered no more resistance than air. The debris being expelled laterally are seen to fall much ahead of the collapse front. So the acceleration of the collapse is much lower than 9.81 m/s^2. Some have measured (from videos) the early stages of the collapses (about 4 seconds) to occur at roughly 6.5m/s2. This implies that the resistive force provided by the inertia and the structural strength of the lower section is roughly one third of the force of gravity acting on the upper block. This makes sense considering that during the fall, the columns of the upper section are no longer connected to the columns of the lower section. Only horizontal elements provide significant resistance and these are designed to resist slightly more than the dynamic load from just one floor falling on them.

[Katzenjammer]

102. "sections of the core stood for a few seconds"

Really? Point me to those videos, would you?

I don't recall hearing that anything massive toppled over onto anything else, but if part of the backbones were standing but couldn't continue, so would the entire backbones have been, and then they would have toppled, not simply broken apart and fallen straight down. So if they did break into small pieces and fall straight down--what caused it?

[FoxOnTheRun]

111. can't find a link

I've seen the video, part of the core was still standing like needle maybe some stories. Then it sunk like it was cut .

[petgoat]

142. You're completely busted

Careful please.

"The core columns can not stand withought lateral support."

The 47 16" X 36" core columns were extensively cross braced, and had floors
at every floor.

What child got hold of your computer while you were in the bathroom and
made a fool of you?

[AZCat]

143. When insulting someone, it is important to make sure...

your assertion is correct, otherwise the effect is somewhat diminished.



Floors = lateral support.

[petgoat]

144. Yes, there were floors within the core.

It was not the "hollow steel shaft" that the
9/11 Commission claims.

I've noted peculiar responses of Careful before, indicating a
failure to process pertinent material.

[LARED]

163. Not only is it diminished

It makes me LOL.

[Carefulplease]

157. There existed no cross bracing of the core columns...

"Cross bracing" usually refer to pairs of diagonal braces in the shape of an "X" that go alternatively in tension and in compression under lateral load. This did not exist in the cores of the WTC Towers, which were allowed to move laterally and not resist the perimeter frame under wind loads. The only bracings were horizontal beams and the trusses that connected the core to the perimeter walls on most tenant floors. The collapse of the upper section would have removed most of this unless you believe floors can interpenetrate each other.

There did not exist 47 16" X 36" core columns. Only a few box columns had those dimentions and then only on the lower part of the Towers. All columns grew much thinner on the way up.

See:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf
pp.26-27

[petgoat]

292. I said "Cross Bracing" not "X-Bracing"

You said there was no "lateral support" and that's exactly what cross-bracing and
the core floor structure provides.

There did not exist 47 16" X 36" core columns. Only a few box columns had those dimentions

Right. Some of them were even bigger-- 52" X 22" http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
(See bottom picture)

At the tops of the towers, the columns transitioned to H-columns.

I don't have time to download NIST's pdf, and besides, I don't want DHS to mine
my IP number from visiting that site, so why don't you tell us that the NIST report
says?

[longship]

103. Uhhh! It's called gravity.

Normally, the force of the support columns equals the force of gravity throughout the structure. When the force of gravity becomes greater than the upward force of the support columns, like when twenty floors of a building collapse onto a single floor, the support structures on that floor can fail catastrophically, and then the twenty-one collapsing floors promote the failure of the next floor, which also collapses, which puts the mass of the twenty-two floors on the floor below that, which also collapses.... etc.

Any structural engineer can see exactly how the towers collapsed without an ounce of demolition charges.

[Katzenjammer]

106. Try accounting for the speed (nt)

[longship]

109. What speed?

Please clarify your question. Thx.

[longship]

114. I presume you mean the *lie* that WTC collapsed in free fall.

I have proof that they did not:

Look at a picture of one of the towers collapsing.

E.G., This one

Notice how the debris from the collapse looks like a waterfall, with it cascading down around the sides of the floors of the building which are still standing.

Now here's the crux of the matter...

The debris must be falling at close to freefall--actually freefall minus air resistance. Yet anybody can see absolutely clearly that the debris is falling faster than the building's floors are collapsing. Otherwise, the debris and the collapsing floors would be all at the same level. Clearly, this is not true. Therefore, the building must be falling at a velocity slower than free fall. At this point it looks like there are many, many "stories" between the lowest piece of debris and the collapse point.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

The 9/11 conspiracy crowd makes shit up.

edited for clarity.

[Klimmer]

119. I'm sorry to hear this has happened to Dr. Jones, however, . . .

the truth will out. And in the end we win. Even if we have to wait till judgment day.

If BYU is not willing to stand up to the evidence, and allow academic debate regarding these issues, and to tell the truth, and support academic freedom then screw them. Where is their faith in Jesus then?

The image you so kindly provided above shows one of the many classic tell-tale signs of controlled demolition, especially the way the WTC towers were done, CD top to bottom. Yes, the buildings fell at nearly free-fall speeds. The only way this could possibly happen and it completely contradicts the zippering or pan-cake hypothesis is that the floors were sequentially blown one after another on the way down faster than the rate of free-fall allowing the buildings to almost completely turn to dust and fall nearly at at free-fall speeds with little resistance with the exception of air-resistance, hence the time just a little more that free-fall speed in a vacuum.

The classic projectile motion of massive steel beams and debri arching up, out, and sideways as the buildings fell can only happen with appropriately placed and massive enough force to do so --- the CD done by explosives (bombs). This was no ordinary CD, it was excessive in nature, sending debri far from the footprint of the buildings.

A building just falling due to weaknesses falling upon itself (if it could, and the WTC towers could not by design) would not do any of this. It would take much longer than free-fall to completely level, the buildings wouldn't turn to dust and pulverize as they did, and massive steel beam debri wouldn't be sent upward, and outward in classic projectile motion. The forces from simply falling by gravity would be mostly downward not upward and outward as is shown in the image you provided. It wouldn't send debri and show massive explosions as all the footage of both towers clearly demonstrate, over and over again.

After all was said and done the pyro-clastic flow of both buildings, again all caught on video from many sources, goes throughout the city streets and across the harbor. This is classic pyro-clastic flow from explosives, similar to what we see when a volcanoe erupts from a massive explosion of an eruption.

You are deluding yourself to ignore all the visual, physical and eye-witness evidence that we now have from that very infamous day. All the evidence together, and ignoring none of it, all points to CD, not pancake or zipper hypothesis. Sorry, if any evidence from your experiment invalidates your hypothesis, then your hypothesis is invalid --- period. That is how the scientific method works. And so much of the evidence contradicts and invalidates the OCT. All the evidence supports CD, with none of the evidence invalidating the CD hypothesis.

I'm coming to the point of believing anyone who argues the OCT for as long as some of you here at DU have (you know, and we know who you are), always trying to get others to buy into the 9/11 Commission Report view of things as the BCF and the Neo-cons would have it (a white-wash), I can't help but think you're just doing your paid inside job. You are not fooling anyone.

How do you sleep at night? Is your conscience that seared?

Sorry, you may say black is white, and up is down, but I don't see it. White is white, and up is up. You can't change or violate the laws of physics, so stop trying.

[longship]

120. The towers did NOT free fall!!!

...Yes, the buildings fell at nearly free-fall speeds. The only way this could possibly happen and it completely contradicts the zippering or pan-cake hypothesis is that the floors were sequentially blown one after another on the way down faster than the rate of free-fall allowing the buildings to almost completely turn to dust and fall nearly at at free-fall speeds with little resistance with the exception of air-resistance, hence the time just a little more that free-fall speed in a vacuum...

This is patently not true. At best it's a fabrication. At worst, it's an outright lie.

As I have already *proved*, the buildings did *not* collapse in free fall. Quit saying that the buildings collapsed in free fall because it never fucking happened. Look!!! It's the debris which is in free fall (or nearly so) while the collapsing floors are a hundred or more feet behind. The buildings did NOT free fall. Saying so doesn't make it so. Physics didn't get suspended on 9/11. If the buildings collapsed in free fall, all the debris would be at the same level as the collapsing floors. Look at the pictures. Is that what you see? No! The debris is falling faster than the floors are collapsing.

So let's have no more talk about free falling WTC towers. It never happened.

There are published papers explaining the mechanisms of catastrophic collapse, but I don't suppose that the CT crowd ever bothers to take the trouble to look these things up. This is undergraduate engineering stuff.

Why do you guys believe all this made-up shit?

[longship]

121. How do I sleep at night?

Simple. I don't make shit up. I trust physics.

Peace.

[Klimmer]

132. A little learning goes a long way . . .

It is an easy (basic) HS physics problem only requiring simple algebra skills and a kinematic equation . . . I teach HS physics so I will make it easy for you.

Height of WTC North Tower (WTC 1) = 1368’ = 416.9664m
Total time of collapse = approx. 11 seconds

Height of WTC South Tower (WTC 2) = 1362’ = 415.1376m
Total time of collapse = approx. 9 seconds


Even at the NIST propaganda website they admit to the collapse times in the following question and don’t argue the times . . .
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

“6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2) — speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?”

Where do these times come from? Well, anyone watching video in real time of the collapses can measure these times with a stop watch. These are the times given from the moment the tower roof-lines begin their downward journey to the approx. time that the heavier-than-air mass of the buildings settles onto the ground (dust particles would stay air-born for a very long time . . . days, even weeks).


From Galileo’s experiments for bodies in free-fall (in a vacuum without air resistance) we have:

The distance (d) an object will free-fall, falling for a time (t) is equal to . . .

d = ½ gt^2

Solve this equation for time (t) and we have the time it takes for an object to free-fall a distance (d) . . .

t = square root of (2d /g)


We will use SI units (metric units) the language of science.

So let’s suppose you dropped a steel bearing from the very edge of the roof-line of WTC 1 the North Tower, how long would it take (in seconds) to impact the ground?

t = square root of (2d / g)

given values: g = 9.8m/s^2 d = 416.9664m

Solving for t . . . t = 9.22 seconds
11 seconds is the approx. time for the total collapse of WTC 1 the North Tower, proving that the tower fell at near free-fall speeds or just a little slower.


Let’s do the same for WTC 2 the South Tower . . .

You drop a steel bearing from the very edge of the roof-line of WTC 2 the South Tower, how long would it take (in seconds) to impact the ground?

t = square root of (2d / g)

given values: g = 9.8m/s^2 d = 415.1376m

Solving for t . . . t = 9.20 seconds
9 seconds is the approx. time for the total collapse of WTC 2 the South Tower, proving that the tower fell at near free-fall speeds or faster.

How you can argue that the buildings DIDN’T fall at near free-fall speeds, I cannot follow your logic or reasoning. You are absolutely wrong.

Perhaps your sleep is induced by intoxication?

[AZCat]

133. Your assumptions are incorrect.

Maybe you should go back to the NIST website and take a little more care when reading, for it clearly states

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Where were these exterior panels falling from - the roof line? Nu-uh.

[Klimmer]

134. I stand by my reasoning and observations . . .

regardless of how NIST determines these times. Anyone can make these same observations and measure these times for themselves. And when you do you get times that are approx. between 9 - 12 seconds depending on the observer's reaction time and timing ability.

A classroom full of students doing just this experiment would be a good way to get a good average, and Dr. Jones had done this with his students in his class at some time.

Bottom line, the collapse of the towers is near free-fall. You would get nowhere near these times if the pan-cake or zipper hypotheses were valid. The collapse times would be much, much longer.

[AZCat]

135. Prove it.

You can use something more sophisticated than high school algebra - I won't mind.

[Katzenjammer]

172. There's no need to use any sophisticated math

The OCT is that each floor collapsed onto and thereby dislodged the one below it. So take the number of floors involved, the distance between them, and calculate the minimum amount of time required for each floor to fall and dislodge the next one.

You'll find that it's about 40 seconds total, for 80 floors. And that's the absolute minumum, requiring that each floor offer NO resistance to being dislodged.

Even if we are insanely generous and say that the collapse took 20 seconds (which we know it didn't, both from the seismic record and watching the news videos), that's still only half the 40 second minimum.

Therefore the OCT is rubbish.

[AZCat]

177. Your analysis has some classis fallacies.

-You assume that each floor collapsed separately, instead of collapsing in groups.
-You assume that each floor accelerates at "g" instead of factoring in energy transfer from the impacting mass.
-You assume that any resistance offered by a floor would significantly slow the process.

Fix these problems and get back to me - then we'll re-examine your claim.

[Katzenjammer]

223. No, there are no fallacies

We have no reason at all to suppose that the buildings --which were designed to withstand earthquakes, hurricane-force winds, and the impact of a 707-- had nothing in reserve to withstand a bigger earthquake, a stronger hurricane, or a larger aircraft.

There is no reason at all to believe that floors would collapse in groups, or that the floors could only offer negligible resistance to being dislodged, or that all three buildings--including one that wasn't struck except by debris--would collapse in the same unreasonable way.

For us to believe that the buildings were so fragile--that mere vibration would cause them to break apart and collapse--would mean believing that the architects and structural engineers who designed the building and who looked at the plans in the decades afterwards were all oblivious to how little stability the buildings really afforded. We have no reason at all to believe they were all such incompetents.

[AZCat]

276. Your post is irrelevant.

Please fix the fallacies in your model and then get back to me. You can read below where Carefulplease has been considerate enough to describe momentum transfer - it might help.

[Katzenjammer]

278. If you have nothing sensible to say, don't say it.

I find that the so-called "pancake" CT would be better called the "piston" CT, since it presumes that the parts of the buildings above the damage (only in 1 and 2, of course; there's no such "explanation" for 7) were both somehow cut loose by the localized impacts and fires, and in both cases fell straight down into the rest of the building (even though one didn't at first follow the script, and tried to topple instead). It was those extraordinary masses, they say, that overwhelmed the resistance of the intact floors, causing the rapid collapses.

It's a really remarkable theory, easily on a par with the traditional explanation of "Why The Bear Has A Short Tail".

[AZCat]

286. How's version two of your model going?

I'd be happy to help if you have any questions - just ask.

[Katzenjammer]

296. I repeat: if you've nothing to say, don't keep talking.

You only embarrass yourself when you try dishonest ploys like assuming a "close" that your empty arguments don't merit. People see through stuff like that.

[AZCat]

308. Like they see through your crappy model?

Posting snarky comments in reply to me isn't going to improve it. You made some major errors when formulating it and you need to fix them - get to it.

[greyl]

147. That doesn't make them accurate.

Klimmer - Anyone can make these same observations and measure these times for themselves. And when you do you get times that are approx. between 9 - 12 seconds depending on the observer's reaction time and timing ability.

Incorrect. The estimate range includes 8.4 to 16 seconds:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/TwinTowersandGravity.htm 8.4 secs
http://911review.org/Wiki/TwinTowers.shtml 15 secs
http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm 10-14 secs
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html 14 -16 secs

When you say 'when anyone makes these observations they get times approx. between 9-12 secs', you are clearly ignoring the true variations that "anyones" calculations display.

Klimmer - A classroom full of students doing just this experiment would be a good way to get a good average, and Dr. Jones had done this with his students in his class at some time.

If you give a classroom full of students false figures to use in a calculation, they will, nearly invariably, end up with a false result. A classroom full of students can be shown the same horoscope and each believe it perfectly fits their personality.
No classroom full of students helps your proof of the tower collapse times. They're irrelevant.

Klimmer - Bottom line, the collapse of the towers is near free-fall.

"Near"? Even by your own admission above, it's possible that the towers fell 25% longer than freefall. Is that "close enough" for a high school math class full of students? Calculating how long it takes for a ball bearing to fall from the buildings upper height has no bearing on how long it actually took the buildings to fall.
You must remember that the answer to the tower collapse times will forever fluctuate due to the subjective nature of the start and stop times.
It's not like measuring the time between a hammer striking a bullet and the bullet crossing a laser beam.

Here's a video for you to time.

[longship]

149. Well, you're making some classic mistakes here.

First of all, neither of the towers collapsed from the top down. So your calculations are most certainly incorrect. The collapse times you use is too short. I'm presuming that you are using information from the conspiracy sites, which is in error. They misinterpret the seismic data, ignore the propogation time of seismic waves, and start the timing after the collapse is already well underway. Why they do this? I have no idea.

For WTC 2, the collapse began at floor 80, a full 30 floors below the summit and proceeded down the structure. The top 30 floor block was consumed in a second stage collapse as it fell onto the lower floors. In other words, the distance of the WTC 2 collapse is 80/110 of your calculation.

For WTC 1, the collapse began at floor 95, 15 floors below the summit. Again, the floors above the collapse are consumed as they fall on the collapsing floors below. This would place the distance of the WTC 1 collapse at about 95/110 of your value.

The final debris impacts are distinctly visible on both of the seismic charts. However, the beginning of the collapse is difficult to determine from seismic data--a fact that the conspiracy theorists totally ignore. However, it is possible to correlate the final debris impact with the seismic data and therefore correlate the video and the seismic data. The results is agreement between the two data sets.

The timing is longer than your calculations to a degree that falsifies the conspiracy theorists' claims. But we already know that because we can see the debris free falling faster than the collapse in any video of the collapses or my attached pics in this thread. So we would expect the timing to also be longer than free fall. Indeed, they are.

The results give about 12 1/2 seconds for WTC 1 and about 11 1/2 seconds for WTC 2. Don't forget that the collapses start below the top of the building.

I hope this is helpful to you.

[FoxOnTheRun]

168. From the 911 Comission Report

From 9:59 until 10:28

At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and
emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals--both first
responders and civilians--in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighbor-
ing streets.The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and

Someone is lying

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-322.html

[longship]

227. I know, but academic papers published since, disagree.

I did use the most conservative estimates. These particular timings have the virtue of being in agreement with the collapse energy and momentum transfer calculations and are a composite of video, audio, and seismic sources. I think that of all the measurements, these are likely nearest the mark.

Nota bene: No value for the collapse is going to be exact. But one thing is absolutely without any doubt, the towers could not have fallen in free fall since the debris (which can *only* be falling in free fall) is clearly overtaking the collapsing floors. Either physics stopped working on 9/11, or the towers fell slower than free fall. I prefer the latter.

[FoxOnTheRun]

229. Do you agree that there should be an independent commission

and that the behavior of the media and the officials is highly suspicious?

Also Hamilton's links to Iran-Contra and Keans membership into the National Endowment for Democracy stink to high heaven

[longship]

238. Abso-freaking-lutely. With *zero* doubt in my mind.

There's a lot of bollocks in the official account, and virtually no accounting on the pre-attack political environment which left the US without any plan for such an event, even after they had clear and unambiguous warnings up to a month prior to the attack.

Did the airliners hit WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon? Absolutely without doubt.
Did the four WTC buildings collapse due to catastrophic failure? Absolutely without doubt.
Did Flight 93 crash into a field in PA? Absolutely without doubt.

Now, we can definitely argue about the precise mode of collapse of the buildings, but there's no way that it was controlled demolition. The concensus of structural engineers and demolition experts is unanimous about that.

But, indeed, we need a new investigation. Maybe we'll get one next year.
One can only hope.

[FoxOnTheRun]

245. What was building 7?

Material fatigue ? And what happened to Larry Silverstein's tongue on PBS?


three wtc buildings and a bit from the pentagon

[longship]

247. Pshaw!

Silverstein??? What does he know? Nothing!

Every firefighter on the scene that day *knows* that WTC 7 collapsed because of the severe damage that it received from the WTC 1 collapse. Why? Because they saw the 20 story tall flame engulfed hole in the south facade of the building. Because they saw a whole corner of WTC 7 taken out by a huge chunk of WTC 1. Because they heard the groans, pops, and creaks of the building throughout the afternoon. Many of them commented that WTC 7 was going to collapse soon after the collapse of WTC 1. All of this is on-the-record.

So what's with this need for a controlled demolition which nobody witnessed, nobody planted, nobody in their right mind would attempt? Where's this come from? I just can't accept the premise and the so-called evidence is utter bullshit. It's going to take more than out-of-context quotes, special pleading, straw man arguments, and photos solely from the north side of the building to convince me. How about some eyewitnesses to the planting of explosives? How about the guy who pushed the button? How about a single whistle blower among the hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals who would be needed to implement such a conspiracy? ... All I hear are crickets.

[FoxOnTheRun]

248. Why didn't building 6 collapse with a big hole in it?

Why didn't only half of building 7 collapse?

Larry knows how to make money that's fore sure. And one person died in wtc 7

[longship]

251. Uhhh! Let's see...

Because WTC 7 was taller? (More potential energy.)
Because WTC 6 != WTC 7?

How about that's just the way things worked out.

Really, I don't mean to be picky. But why does this mean that one has to swallow the whole ball of wax controlled demo conspiracy?

All this special pleading is not positive evidence for controlled demo. What *positive* evidence do you have that WTC 7 was demo'd by explosives? Otherwise, you can't say that your special pleading doesn't mean some other thing. I mean, with all the claims the CT people make, there's not one significant piece of evidence that points uniquely to controlled demo. Not one. Every single thing can be interpreted as something else, less complex than controlled demo.

[FoxOnTheRun]

256. Well the interesting thing is

WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 fell that day.

All three have hot spots in it according to the nasa pictures, isn't that interesting?
WTC 6 for example had a big hole but remained cold.




http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html


and this steel column does look suspiciously cut

[OldSiouxWarrior]

331. May have been cut, by an ironworkers torch.

Exactly what day what that particular picture taken? Are you aware that on the first day the ironworkers union arrived with torches and started cutting steal beams to move them and help resucers try to find survivors. Of course, there were no survivors, but they tried anyway.

Yes, it does look cut. It looks exactly like a cutting torch type cut, therefore it likely was a cutting torch from one of the ironworkers.

[FoxOnTheRun]

265. Mathematicians are a strange crowd

I suppose they can sit in a dark room with a paper and prove through induction there can't be such a thing as a sun, and when confronted with the evidence they start to tweak their parameters.

[longship]

267. Yes. Go back to your counting sticks; give up your computer.

After all, mathematicians don't do anything practical. Right? Might as well lump physicists in with that crowd. Are you turning into a luddite now? I expect the kind of statements you've made from the ChimpCo bastards who eschew education and science, but not from good Democrats at DU.

Mathematics is one of the things that separates us from our ape ancestors. But it's just a tool. It's nothing without reason, without logic, without the willingness to suspend belief in our most closely held beliefs if there is a compelling argument to do so. But what is compelling to the average person is rubbish to another. The only way to resolve these differences is with rational discussion, and certainly not with lame, childlike gain-saying.

In short, many of you people need to grow up a bit and learn to carry on a conversation like adults. Or, at least learn the art of intelligent argument.

[FoxOnTheRun]

268. The problem is you don't have acces to all the evidence

If you have 5 variables and 2 equations what are you going to do ?

Invent data that might fit?

How do you want to solve a problem without having all the data or falsified data by nist because their internal studies showed that the official story is a lie.

[longship]

269. One thing about peer review is repeatability.

Much of the information about the WTC towers is available. There are standard models for much of science and engineering. Where people don't know the precise values they use approximations and then cross-check the results using known valid models and techniques. These are all recognized and valid techniques. All approximations are expected to be cross-checked using alternative methodologies, and they are. People are invited to repeat the analysis for themselves and work out the problems, make corrections, etc.

In the case of the Greening documents which I have cited in this thread more than once. (One post has links.) Dr. Greening analyzes the information using three different and independant models. I don't see anything like this thoroughness and rigor in the conspiracy kooks' claims. If you don't believe Greening, your only choice is to show him how he's wrong. Hand-waving isn't going to cut it. This is rigorous science. One would expect any dissent to reside in that domain as well, with appropriate citations to reviewed literature.

All I've read in this thread is Bugs Bunny-like gain-saying. "Is not. Is not. Can't be. Can't be." It's like you all have your fingers stuck in your ears and your eyes blinded.

Put up. Or shut up. Either defend your arguments with rigor, or go home.

[FoxOnTheRun]

271. The problem is you have a totally corrupt and criminal government

and nobody is going to do anything, when someone tries it they lie or have amnesia.

Nobody is going to stand up and do something.

It's like with economics everybody knows bookkeeping and basic economics but nobody knows that the government has to borrow money from the Federel Reserve and all of the income tax goes to pay the interest. On one level everything is accurate but above everything is a fraud.

Watch them, look in their eyes. The Democrats had one good Congresswoman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU

[longship]

274. Agreed.

But at on level we have the tools. In economics, just like in physics and engineering, mathematics is the tool. I don't mean the hand-waving, from the gut mathematics of grade school or DC politics, but the real thing. Rigorous. Cross-checkable. Grounded in primary principles.

My training is in physics and math, so I tend to be more than a bit reductionist in my thinking. However, in this case, it serves me well.

Understanding what happened on 9/11 is only going to be accessible with this kind of approach since we'll likely never know sufficient details to know absolutely what happened. However, I think we can understand it pretty well.

I have cited a collection of papers on 911myth.com by a physicist who, like me, is not satisfied with the official accounts, and like me, is totally put off by kooky theories which make no sense at all (and have no basis at all).

Look for them in this thread.

[FoxOnTheRun]

273. From greening

The CNN TV coverage of the collapse of the North Tower (WTC 1) provides a
very useful time calibration of this event that may be compared with the Palisades
seismic data. The CNN TV images show that WTC 1 starts to collapse at 10:28:23. The
ground impact of the upper section follows about 10 seconds later at 10:28:33.

Direct observation tells us that the Twin Towers both collapsed in a time a few
seconds greater than the 9.1 second free fall time of an object dropped from a height of
416 meters onto a base about 10 meters high. We now present a simple momentum
transfer theory that may be used to calculate values of tc for each of the WTC towers.


Hallo Mr Greening? Where is the science?

The first omission in http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf is that he does not take into account eyewitness testimonys of people who reported bombs in the building. So how can be seismic data accurate?

[longship]

277. First, you have to read further than the first few paragraphs.

Read the whole article. You've only read the introduction. The science comes after the intro. But you've got to read the fucking thing.

He cross-checks everything, analyzing it from multiple viewpoints. His time measurements from the seismic and video data are consistent with the multiple models he presents (from simple to complex). His stepwise analysis is deliberate and thorough, which is precisely why his paper is important.

If you are planning on taking it on, I highly recommend that you be as thorough as he is.

[dailykoff]

281. Basically he pulls every number out of his

butt and then cites some fellow shill's ball-park whopper to back him up and what do you know, it all adds up! Another Reagonomic miracle.

[longship]

298. Ad hominem attacks aren't going to do it, my friend.

This is a technical paper. If you want to attack it, do so on the merits, not with ad hominem.

Ad hominem attack is a sure sign that the attacker has nothing substantive to say.

[FoxOnTheRun]

283. Have you read this one?

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_3_RossReply.pdf
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/PTransferRoss5.pdf

[longship]

297. Okay. I see some problems with this paper.

It's difficult to access the accuracy of this paper since it is far from robust. Ross includes almost no calculations or equations. However, I do see problems with the assumptions on which his model is based.

First, Ross presumes that the failure mode was deformation of the core column supports. Although this is clearly part of what initiated the collapse, many columns showed no such deformation. Instead, failure occurred in the bolts joining column segments. Since these are far weaker than the columns themselves, Ross' plastic deformation assumptions are therefore wrong. The deformation did not, in general, occur.

Second, Mr Ross seems to ignore the fact, that after failure of lower floor supports, the modeling is simply one of an inelastic collision. The big problem is that when the supports for a floor fail Ross' transfer of energy to the still lower floors can no longer occur. Ross' model ignores this fact.

Third, Ross presumes that all concrete was pulverized the same. This is clearly wrong and accounts for part of his energy deficit. In the far more complete Greening model, Greening found that the energy available to crush the concrete increased as the collapse progresses. In other words, the particulate size decreases as the collapse progresses. This is actually in agreement with site particulate analysis. Not all particulates were crushed equally. Ross has the tail wagging the dog. The pulverization of concrete, dry wall, etc. is a side effect of the collapse, not a primary element.

These are primary issues with Ross' paper. If these assumptions are wrong, he's going to come to incorrect conclusions. No wonder he finds that the WTC collapse is impossible.

[Katzenjammer]

171. Yours is no better, you know.

See my 167 for an exposition. The towers collapsed in only about half the absolute minimum time required by the OCT.

[Carefulplease]

272. What about conservation of momentum?

It was pointed out to you that your claim only appears true if one forgets to take into account the law of conservation of momentum. This is you first mistake. Let us use your assumption that there is no significant resistance to overcome from the floor connections to the columns. (We can factor that in later on after we have fixed you first mistake)

One floor falls on another floor from a height H. All floors have mass M. Before the collision the first floor reaches velocity V1i that can be calculated from E1 = mgH = (1/2)M(V1i)^2.

After the first inelastic collision, both floors are falling at speed V1f = (V1)/2. We get this from the equation of conservation of momentum: summation(j)(mji*vji) = summation(j)(mjf*vjf). Both floors then accelerate further from initial velocity V1 while they fall another distance H and reach velocity V2.

More generally, after n floors have collapsed, a stack of n floors hit the floor below with speed Vni. From conservation of momentum, again, we get that n*M*Vni = (n+1)*M*Vnf and thus:

Vnf = n/(n+1)

You can go on from here. Do not forget to increase the speed at each step. You can calculate this from the equation for conservation of energy: E = (1/2)M*(Vf)^2 = MgH + (1/2)M*(^2Vi)

You will find that a 80 story tower pancaking from the top down, even granting you other assumption (H = 15 feet; actually it's closer to 12 feet), collapses in much less than 20 seconds. This is true even if the mass above the 80th floor just is the mass of one single floor. The result is the same whatever value M has, just as Galileo demonstrated.

[Katzenjammer]

279. Your "explanation" ignores inertia

Intact floors offer more than zero resistance, and their momentum is thus negative.

The only way their resistance would be functionally zero is in what I'd call the "piston" CT (advanced by Eagar and Musso), where the entire mass of the top of the building, somehow cut loose by the (localized) impact and fire, falls neatly straight down like a piston into the rest of the building, totally overwhelming the resistance of the intact floors as it rams them downward. And then the top part of the other building oh-so-conveniently does exactly the same thing. There's no such handy "explanation" for bldg 7, of course, but since it's unbelievable for 1 and 2, that's a small loss.

[Carefulplease]

291. No, inertia is accounted for...

No resistance from the floor *connections* is your own assumption.

Inertia is taken into account in the law of conservation of momentum. Notice that the only thing that reduces the speed of the falling upper n-floor stack by a factor n/(n+1) just is the inertia of the floor below.

[Katzenjammer]

299. According to Gordon Ross's calculations based on Greening's assumptions.

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_3_RossReply.pdf

it's not only not going to speed up, it's going to stop.

[Carefulplease]

304. I am willing to examine with you Ross's calculations next...

However I was addressing your claim that even assuming that the floors offered *no* resistance to being dislodged, the time of the collapse ought to be 40 seconds as an absolute minimum. Do you now realize you forgot to take into account the transfer of momentum in the successive collisions? We can look at the specifics of the structure and the further (non-inertial) resistance it offers to the falling mass next.

First it would be nice if you would just acknowledge your first mistake or else indicate where you think my previous explanations of it were inadequate.

[Katzenjammer]

316. "you forgot to take into account the transfer of momentum"

You got me, and I'm embarrassed. I was sloppy, my face is red.

Now, how about that pulverisation?

[Carefulplease]

320. OK, thanks. Let us look at other things...

Gordon Ross takes up the issue of concrete pulverization (in the context of an energy balance calculation) on page 36 of this paper.

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

Is this what you would like me to comment on?

[FoxOnTheRun]

173. You have a choice

A You made thinks up

B The official story is a lie

Which one do you choose?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=114064&mesg_id=114501

[longship]

228. The report is likely wrong.

See my clarification, above.

Especially since you can actually *see* that the towers fell slower than free fall in every single one of the pictures and videos from the scene that day.

[dailykoff]

237. LOL, official reports are only right when it's convenient

but you believe them anyway. Okay.

[longship]

241. Who said I believed the official reports? Certainly not me.

I just don't believe the pure bollocks being spewed by the conspiracy kooks.
There *is* a difference, you know.
Apparently conspiracy kooks don't understand nuance very well.

[dailykoff]

239. By that pretzel logic, the tops fell FASTER than free fall

in order to be "consumed in a second stage collapse." Creative, but utterly ridiculous.

[longship]

270. Read the freaking article.

The second stage doesn't start until the lower floors have all collapsed. Then, what's left of the upper floors (above the collapse point) falls to ground. It really is simple if you take the trouble to read a little.

[dailykoff]

280. LOL, you didn't name, link, or cite whatever pancake-meister

I'm supposed to psychically intuit from your ravings, but I'm guessing it's another 911myths.com handwaver, in which don't bother.

[LARED]

170. In reality BYU is asking for academic debate

something Jones refuses to do so far. They have asked him to have it properly reviewed.

[longship]

233. Precisely.

He can get out of hot water with his employers any time he wants. All he has to do is to submit his paper for publication in a recognized peer-reviewed journal--like all his coworkers do.

[FoxOnTheRun]

80. ask Kevin Ryan

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

[LARED]

131. Why and what would any one ask Mr. Ryan? nt

[petgoat]

145. Because he knows about "Bush Science"

Has the whole NOAA thing about global warming been lost on
you? Bush bureaucrats wanted to edit scientific papers.
What makes you think NIST is any different?

It's a subgroup of the Department of Commerce.

[Carefulplease]

153. Indeed NIST isn't any different...

Some elements of the Bush administration (including Bush) would have loved to be able to influence the opinion of American climatologists. They have utterly failed. There is no reason why they would have succeeded with the NIST scientists either, had they tried.

That is a quite relevant comparison you just made. Bravo.

[petgoat]

155. Their failure was because of independent scientists outside

NOAA. There is no corps of scientists outside of NIST
analogous to the corps of atmospheric and climatologic
scientists in academic institutions outside of NOAA.

So your celebration would appear to be premature.

[Carefulplease]

159. Oh yes, I forgot...

There are no fire safety engineers, forensic engineers, civil engineers, structural engineers and professional corporations outside of the U.S.A. And all these professionals in the U.S.A. work for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I forgot.

I wasn't celebrating. I was just cheering you for your à propos. But now it seems that you are backtracking, that you now claim that the NIST scientists *are* different.

[petgoat]

293. You're ignoring the big difference between the WTC studies and

the global warming studies.

Climatologists outside of NOAA were studying the issue.

NO independent WTC studies have been funded by any outside university
or institute. Without access to the blueprints, how could they do such
a study?

You'd think the insurers would have spent a few million investigating
WTC7 and ten million or so on the towers, but they're pragmatic
people, and anthrax contamination of buildings is such an enormous
threat that they probably decided they wanted to be on the good side
of the people who were protecting them from the use of the Fort Detrick
strain to contaminate buildings.

[FoxOnTheRun]

166. Who believes in global warming?

I think Russia is happy to cash in money from Kyoto

In the 70's they believed in global cooling. There are to many factors that can't be controlled, like the sun cycle.

[AZCat]

178. You're kidding me, right?

Do I have to start a whole f**king subthread on global warming?

[FoxOnTheRun]

180. I kid you not

Look who is financing this and what the solution is... taxation and not development of technologies independent from oil.

[AZCat]

212. Who is financing what? n/t

[FoxOnTheRun]

214. Money is the root of all evil

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

[AZCat]

275. Your basis is a Richard Lindzen op-ed?

In the WSJ, no less? Get a f**king clue...

[FoxOnTheRun]

294. why are you blurting f words? You sound like Sean Hannity

[FoxOnTheRun]

302. watch this clip from around 1 hour and 4 minutes for about 2-3 min

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=press+for+truth

[AZCat]

309. No thanks.

I'm not big on viewing non-described videos by posters who think Richard Lindzen is a reliable authority on global warming.

[FoxOnTheRun]

310. It's Paul Thompsons new movie and cities wsj oped as the only paper

mentioning Mahmud Ahmad wiring of 100.000 to Mohammed
"9/11 Press for truth"

All other papers later try to spin the story and misquot the name.

[AZCat]

311. And this is relevant how? n/t

[FoxOnTheRun]

313. You said wsj isn't reliable,

but in this case all the others were liars. I would be very careful with every newspaper.

But when scientists are intimidated and their research only financed when they prove that there is global warming produced by man-made exhausts.

But climate change is occurs and there are many factors like the sun-cycle, minimal changes of the axis of the earth, volcanic activity etc.

I'm not saying we shouldn't move to cold fusion,hydrogen , water power or other alternative energies but with the existing power structure of oil men it's very difficult. It gives them more than money...power.

[AZCat]

315. B.S., plain and simple.

Quite the opposite is true - the Bush administration is working hard to suppress any evidence that global warming is caused by man-made exhausts, for which the evidence is clear - we are causing global warming. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of the overwhelming consensus among scientists (with a few lone holdouts like Lindzen). Disagreement does occur, but it is about the effects of global warming, not the cause. There is quite a lively debate right now concerning the impact of global warming on hurricanes, for example.

Global warming itself isn't difficult to prove - what is difficult is determining the effects and predicting the consequences.

[FoxOnTheRun]

317. I would also add to your last sentence the causes and their interaction

Many factors are attributing to this and it's non-linear.
Also Scientist have problems understanding the sun and it's sun cycle up until now.

In my opinion science does not work properly when people who disagree are getting their funds cut or are thrown out, this is simply encouraging lies.
And we are back to the topic of this thread....

As far as I know there are no humans on Mars.
I'm saying that global warming is happening now on every planet in this solar system
It affects Mars for example

And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

[AZCat]

322. Prove it.

You have several times made the allegation that "people who disagree are getting their funds cut or are thrown out" with regards to global warming research. You posted a Richard Lindzen op-ed in the WSJ claiming that but I have yet to see any evidence of such.

Is it nonlinear? Of course, but to claim that said nonlinearity means that we can't prove that global warming is overwhelmingly caused by humans is bullshit. This is, in essence, the same argument put forth by the Bush administration when editing or removing completely sections of reports that state the obvious - that global warming is occurring and that we are the cause. It is bullshit when Bush claims it and it is still bullshit when you claim it.

[greyl]

329. You can't be serious. "The sun and its sun cycle"?

I'm saying that global warming is happening now on every planet in this solar system

You have no basis for that conclusion whatsoever. Is there some lousy website somewhere spouting off that nonsense?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

332. Our sun is a variable star, but only very slightly so.

Over the past 150 years, the output of the sun has been increasing by .05% per decade.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

http://dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html "Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm

[greyl]

333. Right, but "sun cycle" is an astrological term.

The solar cycle is 11 years and has nothing to do with the accelarating global warming that Earth is undergoing. Mostly, the assertion that every planet in our solar system is going through the same global warming as Earth, is totally ludicrous.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

334. That's the sunspot cycle that is 11 years.

I don't know much about astrology, so I don't know their terms.

It appears that there may be other, longer term cycles that the sun has.

[greyl]

336. ...which are directly correlated with solar radiation levels.

Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States, Switzerland, and Germany.
The review, led by Peter Foukal (Heliophysics, Inc.), appears in the September 14 issue of Nature. Among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR's primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation.
"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness," says Wigley.
________________________________

Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun's surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae. The sunspots act as thermal plugs, diverting heat from the solar surface, while the faculae act as thermal leaks, allowing heat from subsurface layers to escape more readily. During times of high solar activity, both the sunspots and faculae increase, but the effect of the faculae dominates, leading to an overall increase in brightness.

The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae affect the Sun's brightness. Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914095559.htm

edit:form

[FoxOnTheRun]

337. The peak activity is also fluctuating and a maximum

from 1920 is not as high as a maximum today for example.

3. Natural factors of climate change: the sun

Another reason for exaggerated forecasts may rest in incomplete knowledge of natural variations, as the IPCC suggests. One such natural factor may be changes in the brightness of the sun over decades and centuries. The magnetism on the sun’s surface varies roughly every 11 years

. According to recent findings based on measurements from NASA satellites, the sun brightens and fades in its total energy output, in step with the 11-year cycle of magnetism. Not only the sun’s brightness, but also its flux of high-energy particles that bombard the earth, changes with the surface magnetism of the sun. The observed association of brightness change with magnetic change over nearly two decades is the basis for thinking that changes in the sun’s brightness occur over many decades, along with recorded changes in magnetism. If significant, brightness changes over decades could drive non-trivial global temperature change.

The climate record indicates a solar influence of this kind. An example

is the record of the sun’s magnetism and reconstructed land temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere over 240 years. The two curves are highly correlated over several centuries. Those changes in the sun’s magnetism may track changes in the sun’s brightness, for which direct measurements are lacking.

Assuming that the timing of the sun’s magnetic changes is a proxy for the sun’s changing brightness, computer simulations of the earth’s climate suggest that changes of 0.4% in the sun’s brightness could have produced global average temperature changes of about 0.5 C over the last 100 years.

Additional evidence points to the sun’s signature in the climate record over many millennia. Every few centuries the sun’s magnetism weakens to low levels sustained for several decades. An example is the magnetic low circa 1640 - 1720, when sunspots were rare and the sun’s magnetic field weak. That period coincided with a climate cooling called the Little Ice Age, when the global temperature is estimated to have been roughly 1° C colder than today.

Quantitative records of the sun’s magnetism over millennia come from measurements of the isotopes radiocarbon (14C, in tree rings) and 10Be (in ice cores). The reason that the isotope records yield information on the sun’s magnetism is as follows. Cosmic rays, energetic particles from the debris of nearby supernova explosions tens of millions of years ago, interact with the magnetic fields of the sun and earth and the earth's atmosphere and ultimately can form 14C and 10Be. The amounts of 14C and 10Be formed in the earth's atmosphere by this process are modulated by changes in the sun’s magnetism. Once formed, 14C in a carbon dioxide molecule may be incorporated in a tree ring through photosynthesis; 10Be may precipitate into an ice layer accumulating in the ice sheets at high latitudes.

The isotope records confirm the occurrence of the sun’s low magnetism in the 17th century, seen in the early telescopic records of sunspots, and reveal similar periods of low magnetism every few centuries, plus occasional, sustained magnetic maxima (circa 10th-11th centuries). During the periods of weak magnetism, the sun should be dimmer compared to the average; periods of high magnetism should mean a brighter sun. Those estimated brightness changes may seem relatively small -- a few tenths per cent for the large swings in magnetism -- but they are large enough, according to some climate scenarios, to explain changes in global temperatures of as much as ~1-2 C.

The influence of the sun on the climate can be inferred from tree ring records 5000 years long. They show that 6 out of 7 long-term lows in the sun’s magnetism correspond to cold spells. Records from Scandinavia covering 10,000 years show that 17 out of 19 coolings line up with lows in the sun’s magnetism.

Similar results are obtained from observations of surface magnetism and brightness changes in sunlike stars: changes of the sun’s brightness over decades may be as large as several tenths per cent.

The idea that the total energy output of the sun changes is one of the simplest mechanisms for the sun’s possible effect on climate change. But the fact is that the sun’s output comes in many wavelengths; it also emits energetic particles, and both are variable in time, space and frequency. British scientists have suggested that the sun’s changing ultraviolet light affects the ozone layer in the earth’s stratosphere, and in turn the dynamics of the climate. Danish astronomers have additionally proposed that the galaxy’s cosmic rays, modulated by the sun’s changing magnetism, alters the cloud cover and, hence, climate of the earth. The different components of the earth’s atmosphere and surface respond to different aspects of the sun’s diverse energy outflows, in ways that are yet unknown. Understanding of the possible effects of the changing sun on climate change is still evolving. New research should improve the computer scenarios in the area of natural variations in climate, which form the background against which human effects must be quantitatively assessed.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=11

[greyl]

340. Look, your original assertion is utter hogwash.

Start a thread in the Environment forum about it, and PM me when you do.

[FoxOnTheRun]

341. No I'm not going to and I don't know how to popular mechanics

[greyl]

342. Ok, HighLights nt

[OldSiouxWarrior]

338. Thanks. I didn't see that when I googled.

Anyway, if the sun is indeed warming, this damn sure isn't a good time to be adding greenhouse gasses.

[FoxOnTheRun]

335. I think it's NASA

[LARED]

164. He may know Bush science, but he doesn't know what he's

talking about

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm

http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#free-fall

[petgoat]

312. What's that? A bunch of ad hominems? nt

[woo me with science]

84. This is very BAD!!!!!!!!

The government is AFRAID of him! Because he knows the TRUTH!

Now they have taken him AWAY! Probably for PROGRAMMING and MIND CONTROL!!!!!!

It is a SCARY and SCIENTIFIC PLAN!!!!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x114128

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

We cannot let this STOP US!!!!!! Keep speaking THE TRUTH!!!!!
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :grouphug: :yourock:

[FoxOnTheRun]

85. Are you 12 years old?

[greyl]

87. I'd guess 28. nt

[woo me with science]

90. NO WAY MAN!

But 12 year olds SHOULD be involved!

If you see them, TELL THEM!!!!

We need EVERYONE! because the GOVERNMENT might blow us up NEXT!!!!!

:yourock:

[TAM]

174. Dr. Jones

Yes I am sure their parents will appreciate strangers involving their children in cyber propaganda.

As for Professor jones, he was likely removed, so to speak, for using the name of the university publicly to promote his views. I have seen several posts on other sites where they have quoted Jones as saying that many of his faculty members are behind him and support his views. The university was likely trying to avoid any more bad publicity. IMO.

TAM

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

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

[woo me with science]

176. You are RIGHT!!!!!

Colleges SHOULD hire them! They should hire even MORE! Because it is a VERY IMPORTANT subject! The government is trying to KILL us!!!!!

Probably it is not even safe to be on this MESSAGE BOARD!!

You are VERY BRAVE!!!!!!!!:yourock:

[savemefromdumbya]

182. BYU Professor on Paid Leave for 9-11 Theory

I see the 'men in black' have paid him a visit? I guess this what happens if you disagree with the Fuhrer?

BYU Professor on Paid Leave for 9-11 Theory
September 8th, 2006 @ 6:59am
Gene Kennedy Reporting

A controversy over words at BYU this morning. A professor is on paid leave for suggesting the government is responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center.

The man on paid leave is Dr. Steven Jones. He's a physics professor involved in the so-called "9-11 Truth Movement."

Jones believes unnamed government agencies orchestrated the fall of the twin towers and he says there's evidence to back it up.

Two weeks ago he published his theory in a paper called "Why Indeed did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?" In it, the professor says the towers fell not because of planes hitting them but rather pro-positioned demolition charges.

He sites research conducted at BYU on materials from ground zero, asserting those materials show evidence of thermite, a compound used in military detonations. He says terrorists could have never set those charges.

The State Department has released a rebuttal to Jones' theory in a 10-thousand page report.

BYU made this statement last night.

"Physics Professor Steven Jones has made numerous statements about the collapse of the World Trade Center. BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty.

"We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones."

The university added, "BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones' works on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues."

It is rare for some in Dr. Jones' position to be under review because he has taught at BYU for more than a decade.

He began his career at the university in 1985 and has been known his cold fusion research. But other professors will teach his classes while he's on paid leave.

He will be allowed to conduct research in his field but the university is reviewing his actions

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=476951

[bluestateguy]

183. Does he have tenure?

I think the AAUP needs to get involved.

If John Yoo's academic freedom must be respected (as it should) then the same must hold for people who espouse 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[savemefromdumbya]

187. This guy is an expert

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/default.aspx

not some tinfoil nutter

[greyl]

189. BYU doesn't have tenure.

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2500507

[bluestateguy]

197. That's a fine way to run a university

A good way to attract top scholars in various academic fields too.

Instead, what you then have is a bunch of professors dancing on pins and needles with their research projects, lest they offend Mormon orthodoxy or popular opinions.

BYU has no right to call itself a research university with such quackery.

[helderheid]

184. I assume he is a mormon as well since he stated that the constitution is

"hanging by a thread" which refers to the "White Horse Prophecy"
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/whitehorseprophecy.htm

[SmokingJacket]

186. That's very interesting. nt

[savemefromdumbya]

190. ?

[helderheid]

195. I'm sure there is a question in there somewhere... I just found that

prohecy interesting, that's all.

[Balbus]

185. Good - That nutjob has no business teaching anyone anything.

[savemefromdumbya]

188. what?

[GregD]

192. care to explain yourself on that?

[haydukelives]

194. please explain

[petgoat]

196. Balbus--follow the advice in your own sig line, watch Dr. Jones's

videos and read his paper, and the please provide specifics for your opinions.

Thanks in advance.

[Wanet]

191. His paper has been removed from its BYU web address

Luckily thousands of people have archived and printed it.

[greyl]

193. Not the one about 'Christ's visit to ancient America'

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm

[Nozebro]

211. Besides, I read that Jones isn't a legitimate 9/11 Truthseeker anyhow.

Isn't he at "Howard Hughes" University doing research essential to the Defense industry? I don't know why anyone would think he's anything more than another gatekeeper. That's why efforts to smear him seem so wrongheaded. As others have pointed out, Dr. Jones is a rightwinger that I'd think any decent Bushco9/11 Conspiracy Theorist would be cheering, not smearing.

[mirandapriestly]

264. where did you hear that?

do you have a link? I doubt if he was "working for the government" he would be put on leave by the university. I think the people who have come out against him and caused the "split" are the disinformationists.
Plus how can he be a "gatekeeper" AND a "rightwinger"?

[greyl]

198. BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave

PROVO — Brigham Young University placed physics professor Steven Jones on paid leave Thursday while it reviews his involvement in the so-called "9/11 truth movement" that accuses unnamed government agencies of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center.

BYU will conduct an official review of Jones' actions before determining a course of action, university spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said. Such a review is rare for a professor with "continuing status" at BYU, where Jones has taught since 1985.

Jones was teaching two classes this semester, which began Tuesday. Other professors will cover those classes, and Jones will be allowed to continue to do research in his area of academic study, Jenkins said.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199800,00.html

[John Q. Citizen]

199. The purges continue. n/t

[FoxOnTheRun]

200. Well the death threats didn't work

[LARED]

201. The evidence for a conspiracy just keeps piling up

:sarcasm:

It about time BYU pulled the rug out from under this guy. He clearly has some sort problem. I hope he gets better.

[Bryan Sacks]

202. If you met him, and you spoke with him,

you'd see he's a perfectly competent fellow. There is no grandiosity to the man. He's humble and studious.

I don't share his beliefs re: thermate. But I don't think it is appropriate to say he has some sort of 'problem' - as if it's his conduct, rather than the extreme pressure around the situation, that is provoking these official acts.

[LARED]

207. I'm sure he's quite competent when he

is in his field. Regarding 9/11 he has strayed far away from his competencies and ventured into a mine field. Perhaps his instant star status in the 9/11 CT community caused him to act the way he has. Something is wrong because no one with his background can truly believe any of his work was correctly reviewed, or meets any standard of real scholarship. In reviewing his work I'm certain he is either clueless or purposefully distorting the evidence surrounding the collapse of the towers.

BTW there is no relationship between his reported humbleness and studious demeanor and his competency. As I've stated I'm sure he is quite capable in his field.

BYU is clearly in the right taking action, his conduct is at complete odds with his responsibilities as a professor.

[FoxOnTheRun]

203. Remember, if you are for free speech you are with the terrorists

[greyl]

204. are you aware of the current situation with ABC and Path to 9/11?nt

[FoxOnTheRun]

206. You can't trust the press, they fabricate side issues and spin

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.
Abraham Lincoln

[greyl]

208. "Stay cool, and don't believe anything the Bush administration tells you.

In fact, play it safe: don't believe anything anybody tells you."

-George Carlin.

[FoxOnTheRun]

209. So staying uninformed and acting like you know something

is the way to go?

[greyl]

210. Yes, that's a splendid interpretation of

what the Carlin quote means and of a motto I live by.

[petgoat]

205. I take it you haven't even bothered to watch the video. nt

[dailykoff]

221. This man is a true American hero

and I fully expect that he will be vindicated by unfolding events, possibly within weeks.

p.s. history will not look kindly on the PNAC cheerleaders who have contributed to the smears against this professor.

[mirandapriestly]

263. Ridiculing academics

now which loathsome historical group did that?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

339. Not ridiculing academics in general, just one particular nutball.

Or do you believe that because he happens to be a professor, that he should not at all be ridiculed for a nutball idea?

[SidDithers]

295. Bookmarking ths post...

so that we can keep checking back to see how that vindication is coming along.

Sid

[dailykoff]

323. You were saying?

Didn't take long, did it?

:popcorn:

[SidDithers]

345. Kick here...

'cause I wanna see if opinions have changed about Dr. Jones, and if he really has been vindicated.

Sid

[SidDithers]

236. Not surprised in the least...nt

Sid

[whistle]

284. BYU and KKKarl Rove are in as tight as a duck's ass I believe

...hasn't Rove been a commensment/graduation speaker at BYU a number of times?

[Twist_U_Up]

346. What are they hiding ?

:shrug: