More on Brigham Young Univ. Professor

[MellowOne]

More On BrighamYoung University Professor-Real Cause 9/11 WTC Collapse



In this paper I question the "official" story that the collapses of the
high-rise World Trade Center buildings on 9-11-01

Address:http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Prof. Jones Tallks To Arctic Beacon On WTC Demo
Address:http://www.rense.com/general68/advice.htm

deseretnews.com | Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Address:http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C635160132%2C00.html

[LARED]

1. Just out of curiosity,

has the professor put his high powered analytical skills to use in actually providing something other than the same speculation that the average CT'er provides seven day per week twenty-four hours per day?

I am quite familiar with most of the speculation and sophistry that passes as evidence in the 9/11 truth movement, and I do not see anything different in the Professors assessment. In short it more of the same, but everyone is in a tizzy because he has a PhD in physics.

For what its worth having a PhD in physics does little to help one understand the building dynamics verses a structural or civil engineer.

[petgoat]

3. Most Structural Engineers were Surprised when the Towers Fell

says NOVA:

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

You act as if there's consensus when there's not. Most structural
engineers very wisely refrain from comment when they haven't carefully
studied the issue, and they can't exactly study it when the blueprints
remain a secret, can they?

The destruction of the steel and the lack of access the ASCE/FEMA people
had to the steel and to the site are smoking guns.

The NIST report assumes what it purports to prove--that collapse
initiation equals total progressive collapse. The computer model does
not even try to explain the collapse.

[LARED]

4. Of course they were surprised

Nearly everyone was. No one expects a steel building like that to collapse in the way it did. After engineers get a chance to see how they were constructed, it seem none of them have reservations. Regarding the NIST reports, do you think they created them without structural engineers?

Just wondering if you hold the dear Professor to the same standard of wisely saying nothing without a careful review of the blue prints. Just as a side note who says the blue prints are a secret? I've seen many orginal drawings in the NIST reports, and the NIST has the reports. I don't think you mean secret you mean unavailable to the general public.

The destruction of the steel and the lack of access the ASCE/FEMA people had to the steel and to the site are smoking guns.

What the hell are you talking about? They had access.

[petgoat]

6. surprised

"None of them have reservations."

Oh right. It's absolutely clear--it was those flimsy truss clips.
The floors unzipped and pancaked and collapse was inevitable.
Pancaking floors tore down the core because... ah.... um.... Wait!
The truss clips were so gosh darn strong that they buckled the
perimeter columns when the floors saged. That's it!

"Wondering if you hold the dear Professor to the same standard."

The Professor examines the available evidence and concludes based on
his knowledge of physics (not engineering) that a new investigation is
needed. The official experts are not acknowledging the lack of
evidence for their conclusions, or their failure to investigate
alternate hypotheses. They claim there was no evidence for
explosives--but there were many reports of explosions. NIST's claim
that they had no steel from WTC7 fails to consider the FEMA Appendix C
steel samples.


"I don't think you mean secret you mean unavailable to the general public."

Right. The securicam tapes from the Pentagoon aren't secret--the FBI
has them. Sorry--unavailable means secret.

Re: Site Access

William Baker: "The ASCE/FEMA team also faced difficulties while
conducting its study. These difficulties included restrictions to
site access, construction drawings, and the inability to move and
preserve evidence."


http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1362

W. Gene Corley: "I have also encountered the same obstacles again and
again, including delays and restrictions on access to the site,
limited power to secure needed information, and a lack of necessary
funding to conduct necessary analysis and research."

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1058

According to Webster Tarpley the FEMA volunteers "generally could not
enter ground zero, apart from an early walking tour."

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:c4SKNriFRpIJ:www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf+weiner+%22house+science+committee%22+wtc+tarpley&hl=en

[Kevin Fenton]

8. Engineer

I spoke to a friend of mine who's an engineer about it a couple of months ago. Initially he thought the WTC collapsed because of the jet fuel and that the buildings had fallen within a couple of minutes of being hit (i.e. before the jet fuel burned up), not almost and hour and an hour and three-quarters later. When I explained the facts to him (i.e. that the jet fuel burned up a long time before the buildings collapsed), he agreed it was odd, in particular that they had come more-or-less straight down. However, he didn't commit himself to any explanation - he's not a structural engineer anyway, he does piping and pumping systems. He'd never heard of the CT at all. However, he remembered the video of the towers falling and even said they collapsed in 10 seconds, which surprised me no end.

I find this is typical (that people misunderstand the facts in a way that makes sense of them, e.g. by believing the buidlings fell after a couple of minutes). Generally, when people hear about 9/11 their brain somehow seems to alter the facts to rearrange them into a sensible story. This happened to me. When I was told shortly after the attacks that the hijackers had learned to fly in the US and had paid 10,000 dollars for their courses (that was the figure I was told) I said, "They must have already been able to fly smaller planes like 737s. They would have learned to fly in their own countries and only done upgrade courses in the US," which is, of course, pure bullshit, but it's what everybody does.

[petgoat]

11. people misunderstand the facts in a way that makes sense of them

Interesting perception. An example is the widespread belief that 747s
flew into the towers--even though the south tower video clearly is not
a 747.

The impression given by the fireball is of a powerful
explosion--inducing imaginings of major internal structural damage.
In fact according to Eric Hufschmid a fireball generates no explosive
pressure at all.

The process of misunderstanding or even rewriting the facts to
preserve a comforting belief is discussed in Leon Festinger's theory
of cognitive dissonance.

His experiment showed that when people were asked to lie just a little
bit and were poorly compensated for doing so, they actually embraced
the lies and came to believe they were true. This suggests that many
of the inconsistencies and weaknesses in the 9/11 story may not have
been errors or evidence of incompetence, but were designed-in by
social psychologists precisely in order to generate the kind of
cognitive dissonance necessary to get people to emotionally embrace
the lies.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[Kevin Fenton]

15. Thanks for the link

"This suggests that many of the inconsistencies and weaknesses in the 9/11 story may not have been errors or evidence of incompetence, but were designed-in by social psychologists precisely in order to generate the kind of cognitive dissonance necessary to get people to emotionally embrace the lies."
This is even more complicated than some of my damn-fool ideas!

[Rich Hunt]

14. yes, read the whole thing please

I've watched every documentary on 9/11 and the fall of the towers that was on.

They all showed bits on the 'clips':

Many structural engineers feel the weak link in the chain within the towers was the angle clips that held the floor trusses between the interior and exterior steel columns.

The angle clips were smaller pieces of steel than the columns and therefore gave out first.

Each floor was designed to support approximately 1,300 tons beyond its own weight, but when one or more gave way in the intense fire of the impact zone, the combined weight of higher floors crashing down reached into the tens of thousands of tons.

[petgoat]

18. Angle Clips

Though the MIT theory was that the exterior angle clips were flimsy, the
NIST theory is that the exterior angle clips were so dad-burn strong
that saggy floors buckled the perimeter columns.

Of course it would be a lot easier to evaluate these theories if we were
allowed to see the secret blueprints, wouldn't it?

[MrSammo1]

19. Find out who

Funded the NOVA program "Why They Fell?" along with the Perdue simulation and you may connect the dots?

[Rich Hunt]

24. are you referring to...

"Why the Towers fell"?

Who DID 'fund' it?

It's been a while since I've seen it, however, there is an excellent site on it at PBS' site. It has a number of interesting pieces, like this one:

"At about five minutes to nine there was an announcement by the Port Authority within our building. First the strobe lights flashed, as they did during their normal fire drills. The alarm system gave a little bit of a whoop whoop, you know, to alert you to an announcement about to be made. Then the very familiar voice, the one we heard all the time, came over the system and said, "Building Two is secure. There is no need to evacuate Building Two. If you are in the midst of evacuation, you may return to your office by using the re-entry doors on the re-entry floors and the elevators to return to your office. Repeat, Building Two is secure...."

"'Building Two is secure. There is no need to evacuate Building Two.'"

And they went through the whole story again. So this was reinforcement that there was no need to evacuate. I am strictly guessing but I would think we were perhaps down to about 25 people left on our floor at the time of the announcement. (I had gone for a walk through our office.) Now, as I say, the pressure was off, and there wasn't a panic, although we were greatly concerned about what was going on in Tower One.

If you went to the north wall windows, you could look up and see the flames and the smoke and regrettably people now starting to jump, because of heat, smoke, or whatever it was. I'm only telling this secondhand because I personally could not take myself to the window to view that. I just didn't want that image burned in my brain, and I'm forever grateful that I didn't go and take in that sight."

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

The site tells me that Nova is produced by:

"NOVA Online is produced for PBS by the WGBH Science Unit.
Major funding for NOVA is provided by the Park Foundation, The Northwestern Mutual Foundation, and Sprint."

So which one is 'suspect' here? Sure looks as if this 'conspiracy' involves every 'powerful' and well-connected person in the United States : scientists, television stations, public television, people working in the buildings, etc. etc.

By the way, the documentary I was thinking of was the A&E Investigative Reports one.

[theSaiGirl]

28. How many good Germans does it take ?

!!!!!!
Sure looks as if this 'conspiracy' involves every 'powerful' and well-connected person in the United States : scientists, television stations, public television, people working in the buildings, etc. etc.
!!!!!!
I am re-posting this excellent summary by Rich Hunt, so people will read it again carefully and let it's logical implications sink in....
As we first heard way..way.. back during Watergate times (they now seem so innocent and un-threatening by comparison) ....
"Follow the money !"

Here is Rich's great post...

24. are you referring to...
Edited on Thu Nov-17-05 05:33 PM by Rich Hunt

"Why the Towers fell"?
Who DID 'fund' it?
It's been a while since I've seen it, however, there is an excellent site on it at PBS' site. It has a number of interesting pieces, like this one:
"At about five minutes to nine there was an announcement by the Port Authority within our building. First the strobe lights flashed, as they did during their normal fire drills. The alarm system gave a little bit of a whoop whoop, you know, to alert you to an announcement about to be made. Then the very familiar voice, the one we heard all the time, came over the system and said, "Building Two is secure. There is no need to evacuate Building Two. If you are in the midst of evacuation, you may return to your office by using the re-entry doors on the re-entry floors and the elevators to return to your office. Repeat, Building Two is secure...."
"'Building Two is secure. There is no need to evacuate Building Two.'"

And they went through the whole story again. So this was reinforcement that there was no need to evacuate. I am strictly guessing but I would think we were perhaps down to about 25 people left on our floor at the time of the announcement. (I had gone for a walk through our office.) Now, as I say, the pressure was off, and there wasn't a panic, although we were greatly concerned about what was going on in Tower One.
If you went to the north wall windows, you could look up and see the flames and the smoke and regrettably people now starting to jump, because of heat, smoke, or whatever it was. I'm only telling this secondhand because I personally could not take myself to the window to view that. I just didn't want that image burned in my brain, and I'm forever grateful that I didn't go and take in that sight."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc /
The site tells me that Nova is produced by:
"NOVA Online is produced for PBS by the WGBH Science Unit.
Major funding for NOVA is provided by the Park Foundation, The Northwestern Mutual Foundation, and Sprint."
So which one is 'suspect' here? Sure looks as if this 'conspiracy' involves every 'powerful' and well-connected person in the United States : scientists, television stations, public television, people working in the buildings, etc. etc.
By the way, the documentary I was thinking of was the A&E Investigative Reports one.

[OKthatsIT]

16. You are too dense to see the obvious?

unbelievable brain dead arrogance ....

[LARED]

17. The obvious?

Explain what you mean. Perhaps being brain dead prevents me from being enlightened by your thoughtful and articulate response. :)

[MrSammo1]

20. not at all!

Just well paid to lie!

[Catamount]

2. Is this professor a conservative or a Lib trying to bring some....

light to the 'darkness' of Utah?

[LARED]

5. Personally I think he's hooked up with the psych department

and is doing an experiment on how much baloney you can stuff into someone that already believes in an altered reality

Just my 2 cents.

I mean seriously, the prof has basically rehashed prevailing CT sophistry in a clear and articulate manner with the twist that he's a physics PhD. If you put a dress on a pig its still a pig.

[Catamount]

7. Actually he wasn't the first with a physics degree--

someone in Britain came out years ago with similar ideas...
Personally I don't want to believe that this was an 'inside job',
it just seems that lately more and more cons are coming out with theories against their 'leader', and I find that interesting.:tinfoilhat:

[MrSammo1]

21. Did you hear this?

WING_TV_2004-05-31_Michael_Elliott_Interview.MP3

look here!

http://911verses.com/underground/

[theSaiGirl]

29. LARED proves Denial ain't just a river in Egypt

reposting the obvious from "nebula"...

nebula (170 posts) Tue Nov-22-05 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
34. The surprising thing about the way the towers fell...
is not that they fell straight down, but the fact that they fell straight down so quickly. If indeed the floors had pancaked on top of one another as the official version tells us, the floors of the towers would have taken much longer to reach the earth due to the resistance encountered and time it takes for each floor to pancake one at a time on top of each other, creating a chain reaction.
But in reality, that isn't what happened. A simple time test using a stopwatch proves the pancake theory to be a crock.
The elapsed time of the buildings' total collapse is much more consistent to that of a controlled demolition, as all floors were in simultaneous freefall (consistent with a controlled demolition), not pancaking one at a time like dominoes!
This is one of the main ideas and explanation put forth by the BYU professor Steven Jones, and it makes complete sense. In other words, the official version is complete BS!
Prof. Jones' explanation in layterms is a must-read:

[theSaiGirl]

30. Just 2 cents from LARED, helps confirm the dumbing -down of America .

As he breezily dismisses the peer-reviewed work of someone whose intellectual credentials and real achievements he has to debase, in order to validate his own twisted, blinded denial of reality.
That's the Soviet "psychiatric" model of deny, discredit, marginalize and ultimately... punish the truth.
To render the exploration of self-evident truth so personally and professionally costly, that people will compliantly surrender to the Big Lie, in the interests of sheer survival.
They already fired whistle-blowers like Kevin Ryan at UL for speaking the truth openly about the steel construction of the Towers.
Professor Emeritus of Texas A&M, Morgan Reynolds was denounced by university prez (and former DCI) Robert Gates as "beyond the pale".
How long before they move directly to make an example of Prof. Jones, so that the academic and scientific community will digest the unmistakable message. The lies of 9/11 are the only allowable truth.
Any questioning of the official absurdities is to be stigmatized, ridiculed and marginalzed...... then finally, criminalized.
Which is where this process usually ends up.
Let's see how long it takes
Positively Orwellian.

The key thing to understand here, is that the actual "events" (representation of events in media broadcast video and audio), such as buildings getting hit and then toppling - or something slamming into the half-vacant wing of a Pentagon sitting securely under the air defense grid over DC (and region) generously provided by NORAD and funded with your tax subsidies....
none of the details of the actual pyro-technic ops, require all that many people.

It's the people required to enable and secure the psy-op as "official" belief, the thousands who saw controlled demolition, right before their very eyes, three times in one day.
Their willingness to comply with that fundamental Big Lie, shows us how far the American "Reichstag Fire" syndrome has gone.

Witness Tucker Carlson, openly ridiculing, condescending and dissing a fully credentialed (magnum cum laude) physics guru from BYU - so that the eloquent account in Plato's dialogue, where Thrysamachus wins the wins the argument through clever and manipulative use of rhetoric and imagery - thus proving that "truth" can be altered, erased or manufactured by mass compliance.
And, in like manner, Achibiades proceeded to sell Athens on a suicidal democratic crusade of conquest, plunging all the Greek city-states into self-destructive madness... by the carefully crafted technology of rhetoric, public relations, information warfare (oracle of Apollo ad Delphi) and just plain lies.

But we lack even the class of the ancient Athenians.

9/11 is more on the order of a late Roman spectacle.
Complete with bread, circuses, scapegoats and lies.

The most basic and elementary premises of physics and mechanics, are spat on and mocked over corporate media (MSNBC - whatever audience remnant remains to it).
Very post-modernist, I would say.
But, at the same time, cheap and common as Latin American banana republics with comic-opera theatrics.

That's exactly how 9/11 - the PSY-OP, the great pyro-technic video performance, actually looks, against a third-rate half-worked Hollywood B-grade script: 19 crazy Arab Muslims with box cutters, masterminded by a dialysis patient from a cave in lower Afghanistan).

The real tragedy here, is not the mass fascist compliance of the American media drones with the Big Lie of 9/11 (and the waves of little lies); it's the fact that such compliance would not be so forthcoming, were it not for the sad and woeful state of American's post-literate populace - stripped naked before the eyes of the civilized world ... as a dumbed-down herd, most of whom probably slept thru their Jr. High School science classes, and then barely slid thru High School Chemistry and Physics.
That's how basic 9/11 is.
And that's why the perps could afford to be so sloppy in actual execution of the "attacks".

Because their greatest odds staked that a willful and compliant population of firemen, cops, engineers, union construction workers - all would democratically buy into the transparent absurdity of "jet fuel fires" causing skyscrapers of steel and concrete to collapse and disintegrate into their own perfectly symmetric footprints, with hot pools of molten steel and tons concrete rendered utter dust (according to Prof. Jones of BYU) ..... transparently ridiculous.

A really clever 9/11 would have had the Towers going down almost concurrent with the "hits" or at least closer in time, instead of sitting there and smoldering before imploding, so much, much later.
Likewise with WTC7 which, for reasons yet to be determined, they failed to level until 5:30 that evening.
Which looks like it couldn't possibly have been part of the original plan. But shows how Capone-sloppy they could afford to be when it came to actual EXECUTION of the op.

It is more empirical validation that 9/11 ultimate significance transcends the "Reichstag Fire", in scale and scope, because it truly seeks to capture the mind and culture of whole populations, which have already been drugged, disciplined or otherwise pacified to play the now boringly redundant role of "good Germans", in this whole tawdry, embarrassing episode.

More than the disastrous and sloppily-executed invasion and occupation of Iraq; more than the rotting hulk of economy and infrastructure, more than the tragic decay of our public education system, the way we are no being laughed at by much of the civilized world, who have pretty much figured out that 9/11 was an inside job of the MIHOP variety...9/11 now emerges as the historical Rosetta Stone of our time. Much like the earlier Kennedy assassination.

It leaves us all with the shame of insulted intelligence and the stale taste of mass intellectual mediocrity in our mouths.

[LARED]

31. peer-reviewed work?

Really? Who?

[Kevin Fenton]

9. He says he's a liberal

"Yes, I'm really a Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University. No, I'm not a Republican (grin)."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=55542&mesg_id=55686

[Catamount]

10. Thanks,

That kind of takes the bite out of his theory, doesn't it?

[Kevin Fenton]

13. Why? (n/t)

[MrSammo1]

22. not if it's

the correct one!

Physics doesn't lie, politicians and government shills do!

[janedoe]

23. But, do you know he has blonde hair?

That would really undermine his theory....

:think:

...or, maybe it would strengthen his theory. I forget. ;-)

[petgoat]

12. Though Utah had something of a reputation I guess for

harassing hippies back in the day, I've found people there to be nothing
but gracious and friendly. If you treat them courteously, they'll treat
you courteously--and they'll sell you beer on Sundays, which they won't
do in Colorado.

[graphixtech]

25. Website resources

Steven E. Jones references these two
excellent websites:


http://wtc7.net/


http://911research.wtc7.net/

[Bouvet_Island]

26. There are some questions about this mans

previous engagement or assosciation with a couple of famous cold fusion scientists. I wrote a comment on this on a blog smear of him that I'll just post here as well. It focused on his work about christ's visits to the states, and put him up for some cold fusion crimes he didn't commit:

1. He is a Mormon. All kinds of religious scientists believe strange things. Many christian scientists follow and believe in more or less solid "Jesus science". Lots of Jewish scientists scientifically puts Jesus and all his pals whereever it would be useful for todays conflict to have been.

Nikola Tesla was an ardent supporter of directing the US defense budget away from earth-based threats and towards attacks by UFOs. That doesn't make induction or AC power wrong. What is interesting is how he applies scientific method, it is revealing that you think a scientific work submitted to a peer reviewed scientific journal can be debunked without dealing with a single of its arguments.

Jones paper reaches a staggering number of people that will read it, as you evidently didn't.

I am not making final judgement on this before I see the final paper, and I will base it on that, not media reports.

2. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/nuclear/dn7315

Cold fusion is not bollocks like you say. Steven E. Jones never claimed his finds could be used for energy production like the idiots you refer to.

Read New York Times' coverage here:

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html

Steven E. Jones claims himself to be the first person to debunk the fake coldfusionist which I find plausible though not verified.

He also does take a position towards how science is often applied by Conspiracy theorists, and does a work with debunking some rather popular theories in 9/11 mythology, read the conclusion to his draft paper.

He did act calm and contained on the MSNBC, intimidating tucker to a degree.

Also note that He is not the Ste*ph*en E. Jones that is into creationism. Steven E. Jones' scientific work aside from his religious writings is rather solid. I made the same mistake as you about him on first encounter. Have a nice day!

[Bouvet_Island]

27. This is a good catch for the professor:

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_395972.html">Jonesing on conspiracy theories

By Bill Steigerwald
TRIBUNE-REVIEW

"You don't have to be a physicist to see that WTC 7's graceful, 6.6-second demise deserves a perfect 10 in the controlled-demolition event. It's also interesting to know that no steel-framed building in history ever totally collapsed from a fire until 9/11/2001, when three did in about eight hours.

Like any good conspiracy-monger, Jones raises lots of good but unanswerable questions and supplies few answers. He doesn't pretend to know who'd actually do such a terrible thing, or how they managed to pre-place all those explosives without being caught. He doesn't finger the Conspiracy Industry's usual suspects -- the CIA, the Jews, the Michigan Militia, the neocons -- but says it probably wasn't Muslims.

Jones, who wasn't returning calls Wednesday evening, asks only that his hypothesis be investigated scientifically by a truly independent body. That completely rules out the U.S. government -- which is just as well.

No matter how obvious, simple or logical it sounds, you should never completely believe the official version. And given our federal government's sorry track record on truth-telling, that's the only rational thing a good citizen should do."

[Lithos]

32. Locking

Rense is considered inappropriate for use on DU. Please do not cite from it.