Let Dr. Jones help you see the light . . .

[Klimmer]

Let Dr. Jones remove your 9-11 Blinders . . .

There are certainly many who have looked deep into the rabbit hole and now know the truth. It's liberating. I dip my hat in recognition to all of you.

But there are those of you who just don't want to know (it's hard I know). But some will over come their fear and do so. It's kind of like taking a breath of air from a diving regulator underwater for the first time, or kind of like jumping out of a perfectly good airplane with a parachute for the first time --- "the long lonely leap", or getting out on the sharp end of a climbing rope and untying . . . emotionally speaking. It changes your reality. That process is hard to go through no matter who you are.

On February 1, 2006, BYU Professor Steven E. Jones gave a public lecture on the various anomalies of 9/11. The lecture took place at the Utah State Valley College in Orem: (His current research page at BYU: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/ )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x68829

His Power Point Presentation is there for viewing. Scroll down.

However, here is his entire Power Point presentation given on 2-1-06 at USVC for downloading and your viewing:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/files/Presentation.exe

In addition, here is the entire audio of the lecture and Q and A session on 2-1-06 at USVC:

http://www.911blogger.com/files/audio/BYU_Professor_Steven_E_Jones_at_UVSC_February_1_2006_911_9-11_Lecture_Bombs_WTC_September_11.mp3

Download the Power Point presentation and have the audio going in the background at the same time and change slides as he does and it's almost as you were there. A DVD will be available hopefully sometime soon, but hey, this is fresh off the press. I've seen many 9-11 DVD presentations and lectures, and this is one of the best. Enjoy.

Share it with your loved ones and as many as you can. The word is getting out. One thing to keep in mind, this isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue. This is a truth issue. This is a who is really responsible issue. Dr. Jones was a Republican until very recently. He is now looking for a new party that represents his values.


There are a lot of wacky ideas and CTs out there on the internet regarding 9-11. It takes time to sort through it all and find the facts and really concentrate on the evidence that can be verified. I'm a HS Physics and Earth Science teacher in SDCS, and I approach it from a scientific point of view --- testable and verifiable hypotheses only. The 9-11 Truth movement is real and happening. Many science, engineering academia and scholars, are coming to the same conclusions: we have been fed a huge lie about what really happened on 9-11 and the evidence that is being looked at, found, discovered, and the studies being done, and the detailed accounts from eye-witnesses are all completely invalidating the official 9-11 Commission Report CT hypothesis. One of the best groups to come forward within the movement that has respected academia and scholarly credentials is the newly formed group "Scholars for 9-11 Truth". I advise you to take a deep look into their original research projects by several of their members:


http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/index.html


The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html


Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


In a nut shell (and you'll have to check the evidence for yourself, that invalidates the official CT):

*UA Flights 11 and 175 did not bring down the WTC towers #1 and #2, controlled demolition did, along with felling WTC tower #7

*UA Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, something else did.

*UA Flight 93 was shot down.



Science is a very powerful tool and can be used to invalidate the official government CT. Using the scientific method, a scientist subjects their scientific hypothesis to the test, and if invalidated, the hypothesis must be abandoned and another brought forth to test, and on and on until hopefully one day a hypothesis is found that is never invalidated and fits all the evidence. Then that is the basis for a scientific theory. Scientific theories have overwhelming evidence supporting them. We as scientists can never prove with 100% certainty, but we can invalidate with 100% certainty. That is how the very powerful scientific method works. The official 9-11 Commission Report CT is a hypothesis. It can be put to the test. And when it is, it is invalidated over and over again. The official 9-11 Commission Report CT "Hypothesis" is invalid. In fact, it isn't even a good scientific hypothesis.

As an example, we don't have to "prove" what happened to the passengers of flight 77. We don't know. But the official Government hypothesis that flight 77, a 757 passenger jet flew into the Pentagon is easily invalidated. The evidence that is available however, does suggest a smaller military jet with explosives on board or a cruise-like bunker buster missile made with Depleted Uranium was most likely flown into the Pentagon. How do you get a massive Boeing 757 through an approximately 16 ft. diameter hole in the facade of the Pentagon, without breaking the windows surrounding the hole, no evidence of the massive vertical stabilizer causing damage, and where are the massive wing structures loaded with fuel that would have been sheared off the jet leaving ample evidence all over the lawn and facade of the Pentagon, even if the wings blew-up on impact? Many people have observed the many pictures of the Pentagon that were taken immediately after and at the initial strike area. The Pentagon at the crash site looks like an immaculate golf course with a small approximately 16 ft. hole in the side of the Pentagon. Where is the massive jet and all the massive damage a 757 would have caused? That portion of the Pentagon didn't collapse for about 1/2 an hour after the initial strike. There are many images showing the actual original damage immediately after the Pentagon was struck. Look at them all. Study them in detail. You tell me how you get a massive 757 through that small hole? It is physically impossible. Solid doesn't go through solid. You would have to alter the laws of nature, the laws of physics to do so, and sorry that just isn't allowed. Everything in the universe obeys these laws, and there is nothing we can do to change that. The evidence doesn't fit having a 757 fly into the Pentagon. This is classic Newton's 3rd Law of Motion --- For every Action Force there is an opposite and equal Reaction Force. Where is the damage that is equivalent to a 757 slamming into the Pentagon? It isn't there. There are many ways to look at this and they all scream no 757 hit the Pentagon.




And no I wasn't kidding about Depleted Uranium (DU) at the Pentagon on 9-11. Enter into the dungeon of the Democratic Underground for a moment if you will . . More Evidence that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon --- Depleted Uranium:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x47528

Look up all you can on Leuren Moret and DU. You'll even learn that we are waging a low level DU nuclear war right now in the Middle East. Iraq will never be the same, nor the people who live there. But this will harm the entire world not just Iraq. We are killing ourselves.

So if the Bush Crime Family, this Neocon Fascist Regime of a government we are currently imprisoned under, is willing to lie to us about this huge infamous event and try to convince us it happened the way they said it did (via the "9-11 Commission Report" and the official NIST report, then what else are they lying about? You know the answer to that question --- plenty. Even Rumsfeld said publicly that a missile hit the Pentagon, but then he quickly corrected himself when he realized he just let the-cat-out-of- the-bag. Doh!

I would hope that you would have the nerve enough, to be brave enough, to ask these hard questions and to really check-it out, if not for others, then at least for yourself. Don't you really want to know the truth, no matter what?

Another way of looking at 9-11: Who had the means, opportunity, and the motive to pull-off 9-11 and for what purpose?
Michael Ruppert author of "Crossing the Rubicon," DVD and lecture at Portland State University on 1-1-01 : The Truth & Lies of 9-11
Watch it for free over the web:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=9%2F11



Hey, here is a bonus. We don't have to be scarred anymore. There is no boogey-man Al CIAda. Here is the BBC documentary all about it . . .


The Power of Nightmares - Part I - Baby It's Cold Outside
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

The Power of Nightmares - Part II - The Phantom Victory
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1038.htm

The Power of Nightmares - Part III - The Shadows In The Cave
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1040.htm


BBC Blog on The Power of Nightmares by the Writer, Producer, and Narrator:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4202741.stm



Truth will indeed set you free.

[savemefromdumbya]

1. 'official 9/11 story' is a hoax

[RufusEarl]

2. I'm a believer, and you're right it's hard to come to grips with.

I don't want to believe that my government had anything to do with 9-11, but I honestly believe it did. And have thought so for some time, building #7 convinced me.

[Initech]

3. Tinfoil hat time! The only way this could be proven true...

Is if you go to one of the aircraft graveyards in the Mojave, California desert or Marana, Arizona. Look for United plane #N612UA (one of the planes that crashed into tower #1). If it's there - that could completely prove this true.

Here's a picture of the plane in question:

[RayUbinger]

48. Actually that tail number is still flying, according to the BTS database

And so is the tail number of Flight 93.

Also, you must be the only person who thinks more than one plane hit Tower 1.

The truth is that no plane hit either Tower, nor the Pentagon, nor Shanksville.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[rman]

77. You seem to make no attempt to explain how all the networks

ended up with footage of a large plane crashing into tower 2.

imo "no plane in tower 1" is somewhat plausible, but no plane in 2 is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence - while you seem to provide no evidence whatsoever. I'd expect to find a "how they faked the planes" chapter on your home page. Maybe you've buried it on your page, but why would you do that?

[RayUbinger]

79. Networks "ended up with" 2nd Hit footage by CREATING it in the first place

Here once again is the world's most famous cartoon, in frame-by-frame slideshow:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2/

It is live animation onto a panned still. A real live shot would not have had a STATIC smoke trail, nor a STATIC lick of flame lower down in the (already-hit North) Tower. A real left wing would not have disappeared BEHIND a building in the BACKGROUND. A REAL plane would have fractured and exploded on impact, not vanished whole like a ghostly Fligh Simulator model.

This stuff is not on my site because my site specializes in different research (exposing the Naudet-FDNY Snuff Film). Sorry for that confusion.

The networks were IN ON IT.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[hack89]

4. I see your one BYU Phd and raise you 10 MIT Phd's..

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

What a hard choice!

[Woody Box]

5. I call your bluff

Science is no poker match. Prof. Jones is not the first one to question the official explanation for the WTC collapses. Remember Kevin Ryan, expert from Underwriter Laboratories, the company who certified the WTC steel? After declaring that it was impossible that the jet fuel generated enough heat to melt the WTC steel he was fired.

10 sycophantic profs for civil&environmental engineering don't match a courageous prof of physics daring to accuse the government of covering up a mass murder.

[hack89]

6. Sycophantic = disagrees with you - OK

A simple challenge - look at the MIT papers with their calculations, references and all the other things one expects in a scientific paper. Now show me a single paper concerning 911 from prof Jones that remotely resembles one of these papers.

The fact that you are unable to attack the papers on their scientific merit is telling - but then who needs scientific knowledge when personal smears work just as well in the CT community.

As for Ryan, he was not fired for stating that the jet fuel fires were not hot enough to melt steel simply because no one involved in the investigation every said that. It is a strawman. He was fired for getting involved with an official investigation without notifying his bosses.

[dchill]

13. Sycophantic =

wanting to keep your job safe and your family safe. I already respect the hell out of MIT for their "impeccable" analysis of the 2004 election and the exit poll controversy. (Bush Vote Underestimate = My ass.)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0411/S00140.htm

Have a nice day!

[hack89]

14. So these engineers did the poll? Interesting.

Science is science - it can't be hand waved away especially when they present their calculations and references. Can you even understand what they wrote - I didn't think so, otherwise you wouldn't resort to smears.

You are pathetic!

[dchill]

19. Are you impressed every time you see...

"calculations and references"? Or just when it bolsters your opinion. "Science is science." Oooooh! BRILLIANT! How about "Religion is religion." Or "Pathetic is pathetic."

Yes, I read the whole damn thing, and I hate pdf's. That report is basically a justification of early opinions by the scientists involved. They use hearsay and conjecture to make their points.

"The velocity with which terrorists crashed the ill-fated planes onto the buildings on September 11, 2001 is an important parameter in any post-mortem analyses on the collapse of the buildings." That's hardly a sentence one would expect to see in a scientific report." Is it an important parameter that terrorists crashed the planes? Is that proof of terrorists?

"An important lesson to be learned from the WTC collapse is that buildings are like chains in the sense that these are only as strong as their weakest link." This supposed scientific certainly is, of course, bullshit.

The incredibly flawed report to which you link our browsers and your limited reality is misconceived. A scientist does not set out to prove what he wants to have happened. He sets out to prove what did happen. Collapse due to fire is NOT what happened.

If you have looked at what Steven Jones has to say, then I don't understand your hostility. If you haven't, then I STILL don't understand your hostility.

And, yes, I am pathetic - but you could not have scientific proof of that. And you don't know why.

[LARED]

20. I've read both, the MIT papers and Dr. Jones'

What exactly did Dr. Jones say that impressed you so much? As I found his paper wholly inadequate.

[Woody Box]

22. If you found Dr.Jones' paper "wholly inadequate"

then please elaborate, LARED Lazy-Bone, instead of demanding from others to waste their time to convince hopeless believers.

And, please, a bit more than one line.

[dchill]

42. Apparently...

All the papers and presentations by anyone are "wholly inadequate" to prove anything one way or another to any significant majority. Or in a court of law. I was impressed with virtually all of the Jones presentation, because it raises the subjects and asks the questions that I have had since 9/11. For me, the presentation was wholly adequate to those ends.

Also let me add that I completely disagree with your sig line. There is always a third option. In this case, I can see that there may be those who think that neither the "Creator" NOR the State are in any position to either endow or disavow their "rights." I'm equally sure that history is full of examples of "Creationists" and "Stateists" who have learned this the hard way.

There is always a third option.

[LARED]

53. Let me provide an example of how

Dr. Jones paper is inadequate.

I will leave it to you to re-read his paper, but he does a very unscholarly piece of writing. A sure sign the paper has not be peer reviewed.

He goes to lengths tying together the fires in the towers on the day of the collapse with the underground fires found weeks later with molten metal. He makes the false connection that if the fires in the building cannot explain the melted steel in the building then there is a big question to be answered. The steel in the building did not have to melt for the building to fail. Anyone familiar with the properties of steel can tell you that.

He's not even asking the right question. The right question is can underground fire explain the molten metal. Something he never breaches, but simply says Thermite is the explanation. The characteristic of the fires on the day of the collapse are completely different from the underground fires burning weeks later. So why does he spend lots of effort explaining how the fires on 9/11 cannot melt steel when this is not required, but cannot explain the molten metal weeks later. Other than the fires on 9/11 starting the underground fire they have nothing to do with each other. The notion that thermite was used is easy to dismiss once you investigate how thermite works and hoe much would be required to accomplish the task he believes it did. He is a PhD? Can he possibly miss the significance of these errors? In my view no serious minded physicist could have possibly missed so the fallacies he proposes.

I don't know what he is trying to do with his regurgitation of 9/11 myths and fallacies, but I am not impressed with his presentation as it stinks of sophistry.


So if there's a third way to endow rights, tell me about it?

[petgoat]

65. "The notion that thermite was used is easy to dismiss

once you investigate how thermite works and hoe much would be required
to accomplish the task."

Everything is easy to dismiss if you consider "poo-pooing" a rebuttal.

How much thermite would be required, and why could that amount not have
been moved into the basement?

[LARED]

73. A thermite induced collapse

from the basement would have not caused a pancake collapse of the towers.

Did you need more?

So what about Dr. Smiths fallacies?

[petgoat]

74. A thermite induced collapse

would not cause pancake collapse? Oh, gee, thanks for setting us straight on that.
Your calculations and references are so impressive!

I think basement bombs would under either the zipper theory or the NIST theory would cause a pancake
collapse. Loss of core integrity would cause the floors to sag, pulling on the perimeter columns.
Presumably the place where the building was most damaged would fail first, but supplemental charges
on the core could initiate collapse anywhere it was desired. Depending on whether you like your
kool-aid "zipper" flavored or "NIST" flavored, the saggy floors would buckle the perimeter columns, or
unzip from the perimeter.

"So what about Dr. Smiths fallacies?"

That question assumes facts not in evidence. What fallacies?

[LARED]

75. So you believe that the top section of the south tower

started tipping over because of thermite charges in the basement?

Really?

[dchill]

76. Third way...

Obviously, in this country, around 1776, the people endowed themselves with their own rights. This is an inconvenient way to achieve those rights, because they must continuously make sure to keep them.

[LARED]

86. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? (n/t)

[dchill]

87. No, and I don't intend to.

I'm a natural borned citizen and I automatically know I have rights so I don't have to read no 200-year-old mumbo-jumbo.

Of course I have read it. It says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Your point is what? That this proves that there is a Creator? No. It proves that this particular group of rebels chose this eloquent wording to describe what they were doing - seizing their rights from a cruel monarchy. This idea is best summed up in the passage: "— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

You can't prove that old "This or that, no other choice" rag. That's just a threat. King George probably told the revolutionaries something like, "My way or death," yet they found a third option. And that third option may just have been one of several.

Personally, I don't believe that the founders were particularly religious men, and I see all kinds of protections in the Constitution that are meant to keep "the Creator" out of government. It will be a cold day in Hell when the Creator restores to us any rights that our current government has taken away.

[hack89]

25. I looked at what Steven Jones has to say ..

how is it different from any other CT site? Where is his original research or experiments? Why can't he articulate an argument using basic science and engineering principles that show why it has to be demolition?

He calls himself a scientist yet he has done no science.

Look at those papers again - they are grounded in fundamental principle accepted universally and have been published for peer review. This is real science. Why can't Jones do the same?

[petgoat]

28. You're all mixed up, hack

The MIT/Caltech study that validated the election results took the corrected exit poll
numbers (corrected by adding in the actual vote count) and compared them to the actual
vote count, and--surprise!!!!--found that they were the same.

It was highly misleading, and very very dumb.

[wildbilln864]

38. So what's your scientific explanation......

for building #7's collapse?

[hack89]

40. Structual damage and fires

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...


Battalion Chief John Norman:

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

[wildbilln864]

45. OK, so please tell me scientifically...

how does falling debris make a twenty story hole, not in the top but in the side of #7?
And what caused the fires on those floors?


your posts...
We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

[hack89]

47. It was at the outer boundary of the debris field ..

do you think that every thing just fell vertically and stopped exactly where it hit? Did you ever consider that the debris might have bounced off of WTC6 across a city street and hit the front of WTC7?

There was tons of burning material and red hot steel in the debris. There were tons of combustible materials in WTC7 to catch on fire.

[petgoat]

68. How Come the FEMA Report Doesn't Mention All This

catastrophic structural damage in WTC7?

I guess they didn't ask? Why did they have to settle for the
humiliation of not being able to explain the collapse if all
that FDNY brass knew all about gaping ten-story holes?

[hack89]

71. Perhaps because NIST was acting as an agent of FEMA?

On August 21, 2002, with funding from the U.S. Congress through FEMA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced its building and fire safety investigation of the WTC disaster.

And NIST was continuing the investigation that FEMA started. You honestly expect all the answers all at once?

[petgoat]

18. I'll attack it on its scientific "merit", hack

Eagar's absurd "zipper" theory requires that the exterior truss "clips" be
so flimsy that a few ruptured trusses "unzip" the entire floor in two seconds,
but requires that the interior core "clips" be so gosh-darned strong that that
collapsing floors tear down the core columns as they fall.

[hack89]

24. Since Eagar wrote none of these papers,,,

it would appear your technical knowledge is matched only by your reading ability.

As for Eagar, here is his CV http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/TWE_CV.htm

You are delusional if you think you have the knowledge to question him.

[petgoat]

27. ..

I've skimmed or read most of those papers in the past.

I assumed the set included Eagar because he had the comprehensive
collapse theory that became the official story until NIST repudiated
it. Since MIT never bothered to defend it, I'll suppose it wasn't
worth defending.

"You are delusional if you think you have the knowledge to question him."

Ah, practicing medicine without a license, are we, Doctor?

I don't have to question him; NIST does. They completely reject his silly
"zipper" theory. Where Eagar had flimsy perimeter truss "clips" that left the
perimeter columns unstiffened so they buckled outwards, NIST has perimeter
truss clips that are so gosh-darned strong that sagging floors buckled the
perimeter columns inward.

Gee, you'd think they could have saved some of the steel so we didn't have to
believe bullshit for three years, but the recyclers wanted the steel, and what
recyclers want, they get.

And I'll question obvious absurdities regardless of their propounder's credentials.
Eagar's theory required that the external clips be weak, but that the internal clips
were so strong that the collapsing floors took down the core columns with them.

[hack89]

41. BYU did MIT one better

and categorically disowned Jones and his theories. Just like Eagar, he is beyond defending.

"The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Centerbuildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

And did you notice that Eagar is also referenced in Jone's paper? How good can Jones be if he uses hacks like Eagar to build his case?

[dailykoff]

51. No, Dr. Jones did MIT one better.

Anyway MIT has been a player in the military-industrial-intelligence complex from way back.

[hack89]

52. And of course BYU is a liberal university that refuses Pentagon money. nt

[petgoat]

63. BYU is a liberal university that refuses Pentagon money.

That's just the point. Why do you think the structural engineers are sniping at Jones?
Besides, your quote is a long way from Jones being "categorically disowned". It simply
points out that Jones's paper has not been peer reviewed. Yet. It makes no attempt to
refute his points. Pretty faint criticism, seems to me.

[hack89]

72. So has it been peer reviewed yet?

has he mentioned any plans for publishing his research?

[Woody Box]

21. Don't be so gullible, hacky ;-)

You think if Paper A contains more calculations, references and "all the other things one expects"
than Paper B, the scientific weight of A is heavier? C'mon.

That's certainly not a scientific approach. If the calculations are based on wrong premises, if the references refer to biased sources, then even the "other things" don't help.

Here's an example for a paper with a huge list of references. Nevertheless, it's rubbish:



I told you what I think the motives of the MIT guys are. Now tell me, hacky: What's the motive of Prof. Jones? If you trust the MIT staff more than him: Does Jones spread his (according to yours) wrong analysis deliberately, or is he just a lousy physicist?

[hack89]

23. The problem is Dr Jones has done no science at all..

can you show me a single research paper on 911 that he has done? All he has done is regurgitate CT theories. He has done nothing that could remotely be called science.

These papers, regardless of what you think of their contents, represent in format and style what science papers should be. Are you saying that calculations and references are optional?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[dchill]

26. !

...the motive of Prof. Jones? - What happened.
:)

[LARED]

9. Kevin Ryan; Expert?

Refresh my memory what was his expertize.

[petgoat]

29. He didn't need to be an expert.

He simply pointed out the obvious: The steel did not get
hot enough to weaken it. That doesn't take any "expertize";
it just takes an independent and clear-thinking mind.

[AZCat]

32. Obvious to whom?

The only thing obvious to me after reading his letter is that Kevin Ryan doesn't understand the relationship between temperature and yield strength in metals. He appears to have read (or at least skimmed) ASTM E119, but does not see that the standard says nothing about the behavior of structural members during the test other than requiring that they be able to support the anticipated load for the duration of the fire resistance level sought.

[petgoat]

33. Obvious to whom? Obvious to any honest person.

NIST has not one piece of core steel that shows heating above
250 degress C. Not one. Instead of acknowledging honestly
that somebody screwed up when they took the samples, NIST
draws pretty computer graphics to show the temperatures that
would have happened if fire did bring the towers down.

(Of course NIST is pretending that the FEMA Appendix C sample,
the one from the WPI report that shows shows signs of heating
that "evaporated" the steel, does not exist.)

[AZCat]

36. Elevated temperatures weaken steel.

There is no debate about this - it is just how the material reacts. The relationship between temperature and yield strength is continuous so while steel at 250 C may not be as weak as steel at 500 C, the yield strength still decreases. Ryan doesn't understand this and that is why his letter is unimportant - he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[petgoat]

37. Elevated temperatures weaken steel

and lack of food leads to death by starvation, but skipping lunch isn't going
to kill me, and steel structures overbuilt by a safety factor of five are not going
to be fatally weakened by heating under 250 degrees C.

Kevin Ryan doesn't need to know what he's talking about. He just needs the
common sense to recognize the above.

[AZCat]

39. Do you have anything to back up your statement?

Normally this kind of analysis takes time, and is performed by someone with a great deal of expertise.

I'll respect your statement when I have reason to believe you based it on something other than wishful thinking.

[rman]

43. Properties of steel, temp of fire known long before 9-11

So there's no need to investigate that.

'Normal' open fire (not blast-furnace) reaches temps of up to some 400c. air temp of 400c causes wood to singe and ignite spontaneously.
Only over-pressure of oxygen (air) can cause higher temperatures (blast furnace).

Open fire temps hardly have any effect on the strength of steel. Not to mention that the huge mass of steel in the towers and in wtc7 serve as an excellent heat-sink. Nor to mention that buildings are always over-designed - even if the steel would loose half its strength it would not cause collapse - which is why steel frame buildings have never collapsed before.
Nor to mention that much of the jet fuel (and in case of wtc2 -most- of it) ignited outside the towers. Even if it hadn't, it would only have prolonged the fires, not increased the temperature significantly. It is clearly visible in video footage that any serious kind of fire didn't last very long; the dark smoke is an indication of a starved fire.

Compare that to the Madrid high-rise fire that lasted for a day or so, without causing collapse.

Have you ever wondered why a cast iron wood stove and barbecue grid don't melt or collapse even after repeated and prolonged exposure to fire?

Military grade Thermite however reaches temps of 2500c - enough to quickly evaporate steel.

All this knowledge is in the public domain. I challenge you to come up with two independent sources that contradict it.

[hack89]

44. Where to start

1. Office fires reach over 1000 F.
http://www.drj.com/drworld/content/w2_089.htm

2. The top stories of the Madrid building did collapse and the steel was
severely weakened and deformed by fire alone.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

[petgoat]

54. Office fires reach over 1000 F.

Ceiling temperatures of 1000 degrees F does not equal core steel temperatures
of 1000 degrees F because the massive 14" X 36" steel columns are enormous heat
sinks. You can't soften a crescent wrench with a candle flame.

Part of the Madrid building collapsed. That's what we would expect in the WTC, too.
Asymmetric fires lead to assymetric partial collapse. (The Madrid building was reinforced
concrete, not steel frame.)

[hack89]

56. But the flanges, trusses and clips were not massive ...

so I am not sure of your point.

In the Madrid fire the steel buckled due to heat - exactly what we saw in the WTC.

[AZCat]

58. I'd love to see your calculations...

of the "heat sink" properties of ANSI 304 steel. Perhaps you could include a FEA analysis so I can see the isotherms?

[petgoat]

59. Oh come off it. Steel has a low R-value, ANSI 304 or otherwise. nm

[AZCat]

60. R-Value isn't everything.

Ithis case it doesn't do you nearly as much good as you might think because the load isn't constant - you're going to need more information. More importantly, R-Values do little good when modelling semi-infinite fins.

[LARED]

61. Free FEA software found here

http://www.freebyte.com/cad/fea.htm#fea

Go for it Petgoat.

[AZCat]

46. Building design is not as simple as you think.

A classic example of building failure is the collapse of the Kansas City Hyatt walkway in the early eighties. Structures are not as overdesigned as you seem to think, and steel at half strength is much more of a problem than what might appear at first sight. Since plastic deformation begins well before that point, changes in the geometry of a structure can exacerbate the stress allocation, such as anything that removes some of the structural members (like an aircraft) or causes the elongation of others (heating or cooling). All these things are unfortunately difficult to generalize about, and that is why for every building (with a few exceptions) a licensed structural engineer has to certify that the structure is sound. I doubt the validity of a layperson's cavalier assessment of the robustness of a building because it is too complex a task to be so easily dismissed. If you would be willing to produce an analysis equal to that done by the engineer who designed the building then I would reconsider.

[petgoat]

55. The KC walkway is a lousy example

because it was an engineering stunt, not a building; because it was the execution
that failed, not the design; and because the cause of failure was very easily
determined. The contractor changed the design, and it overloaded the connectors.

Buildings are commonly over-built by a factor of five, and most engineers were
surprised when the WTC collapsed. In fact the leader of the charge in the
"total progressive collapse" school was an engineer with the company, Controlled
Demolition, that got the cleanup contract. They also did the cleanup of the
OK City Federal Building, the destruction of which also involved a number of
peculiarities.

[AZCat]

57. The design was poor anyway.

The connectors would have overloaded under certain conditions regardless, but the change by the contractor (which was approved by the design engineer) didn't help things.

You still provide no analysis to support your conclusion that the WTC should not have collapsed other than this claim that "(b)uildings are commonly over-built by a factor of five" which is about as poor a generalization as there can be.




Edit: corrected tag.

[petgoat]

62. "over-built by a factor of five"

This is what I was told by an engineering prof when I was in college.

"The building business uses safety factors of 5 or 6:1."

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s07/p9300.html

[AZCat]

64. Your link makes no sense.

It doesn't seem to connect to your argument.

More importantly, it seems you don't grasp the idea of a "safety factor" properly. "Safety factor" does not equal "overbuilt". Safety factors are meant to cover the unknowns of a design, not to overbuild. A safety factor for the max load on an individual structural member doesn't translate to the equivalent safety factor for the whole building, unfortunately (the math gets pretty complicated). Safety factors were particularly important before the advent of sophisticated techniques that could provide more precise load analysis for buildings. Since redundancy is expensive, economics drives engineering to be more efficient. Structural steel is a big part of building cost so it is not economical to overdesign.

[petgoat]

66. What part of "The building business uses safety factors of 5 or 6:1."

do you not understand?

[AZCat]

67. That's not what I get when I follow the link.

I see some page talking about tree structures and geodesic domes.

[petgoat]

69. I guess you don't know how to use the "search this page" function

in your web browser.

It makes internet research a lot more efficient.

[AZCat]

70. What am I looking for?

Support for your safety factor ratio? I don't disagree with that, but if you would go back a few posts you would see that I take issue with the claim that this is equivalent to the safety factor for the whole building.

[janedoe]

85. And the engineers who OK'd that design lost their license, for life! (n/t)

[AZCat]

89. They did a little prison time, too.

That's the risk you take when you stamp drawings.

[mirandapriestly]

34. Plus, most of those articles aren't deciding who"did" 911

they are just individual issues, such as the speed of the aircraft as it hit the WTC, etc..

[RayUbinger]

49. "Terrorists who deliberately crashed two passenger jets" into WTC towers

That's from early in the MIT essays. Sorry, but this video frame of the first tower about to get hit, is just NOT a picture of a passenger jet:




THE FLASH FRAME CHANGES HISTORY ... IF WE'LL LET IT.

Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[hack89]

50. So what is it? nt

[RayUbinger]

78. Something other than a passenger jet

http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/beautyshots.htm

[hack89]

80. Flying pigs - OK

why is it that CTrs have all these questions but no answers?

[RayUbinger]

81. Just because we don't know everything, doesn't make it a plane

Flying Pig is Webfairy's fanciful way of saying it's not a familiar object.
But unfamiliar doesn't mean unreal.

You do agree that that is not what a 767 looks like, right?

[hack89]

82. Those pictures are so distorted ...

they could be what ever you want them to be.

Why wouldn't it be an airliner - they are plentiful and easy to paint. Why risk someone taking a picture of what is clearly not a 767 and blowing the entire plot to pieces? Getting their hands on a 767 would be the easy part of the conspiracy.

[RayUbinger]

83. Why it wouldn't be an airliner

Because it isn't. Airliners simply don't look like that. They are significantly bigger than that thing, and have a much more distinctive shape. In no frame
http://missilegate.com
does it have an airliner's shape or size.

And no, photos cannot be whatever you want them to be. Cameras do not have agendas. There is an objective difference between what a Cessna-sized blob and a 767 look like at only 7/10ths of a mile in broad daylight. The pictures show the former, not the latter.

The proper term for "not what you were expecting" is: "unexpected," or "unfamiliar." Not "distorted."

Gerard Holmgren has an essay that answers your last point:

"Why They Didn't Use Planes"
http://911closeup.com/index.shtml


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[hack89]

84. Sorry - it simply makes no sense. nt

[RayUbinger]

88. That's pretty sorry all right

The sense in question is the sense of VISION. I point you to direct photographic proof that the 1st Hit object was something other than a large passenger jet. I too was uncomfortable with this fact at first. But we have to deal with it. Ignoring facts doesn't make them go away, it just cripples our thinking.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[spooked911]

90. sure as heck looks like a missile there, though in other frames

it does look more plane like.

Whatever it is, it seems a bit too small for a 767.

I have no idea what the flash is, unless it is explosives going off at the point of contact.

[RayUbinger]

92. I see no frame in which it looks plane like

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html
Here are some short demonstration vids of actual AIRPLANES:
http://911closeup.com/planes/index2.htm

And yes it is too small for a 767. Marcus Icke has rendered a very nice comparison pair of images, between a Naudet frame as it is vs. the same frame with a scaled CGI of a 767 (WITH MATCHING BLURRINESS ADDED) in place of the actual object. It's well worth the minute that it takes to load:
http://www.gallerize.com/WTC1_Hit/WTC1_Hit.htm#Page_6

I don't know what the flash is either but I suspect it's the spark for a fuel-air explosive packaged in with a depleted uranimum warhead. And altered by holographic cloaking which is somehow rendered impotent during the 1/50th of a second when energy is going into the flash instead. This is in the realm of speculation, but the object's not being a plane is demonstrable.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[sabbat hunter]

11. i have been here a while

and i agree, the forum rules state that 9/11 topics go in the 9/11 forum. if you have a problem with that takes it up with the mods privately, not out in the open, as per the rules.

even progressives need rules or there is anarchy

[JackieO]

12. Actually

The rules are worded in such a way as to avoid the appearance of blatant censorship. If the complaints about censorship are getting to be too much for you, maybe you should write the admins and ask them to clarify.

[rman]

16. perhaps we should have a discussion about what anarchy actually is

[Make7]

17. an·ar·chy - 2b) absence of order ( n/t )

[rman]

15. this one stayed in GD for quite a long time

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=70064&mesg_id=70064

i think it helps when you don't put "9-11" in the subject line.

[rman]

31. one of the best presentations on the matter

that i have seen yet.

[Emillereid]

91. Thanks Klimmer for this great compilation!