NationStates Jolt Archive

BYU’s Dr. Steven Jones Blows the Roof off a Utah Auditorium
by Philip Sherman Gordon

On Wednesday, February 1, a quiet, “churchy-looking” gentleman in a white shirt and tie walked into a packed auditorium on the campus of Utah Valley State College and electrified the room like a rock star. The 150-seat auditorium was filled to capacity, with every seat occupied, and people sitting in the aisles from the stage floor to the back of the room. Video cameras on tripods lined the back row. Two documentary-film crews were in attendance, in addition to the school’s camera crew, and various independent journalists. Seven “spill-over” rooms, with seating for 40-50 each, were also filled to capacity. On this very conservative campus (in the most conservative county in the most conservative state in the union), where community leaders pulled out all the stops in 2004 to prevent Michael Moore from speaking as part of his anti-Bush, pro-Kerry “Slacker Uprising Tour,” Dr. Steven Jones, this pious professor from the Mormon Church-owned Brigham Young University, calmly, gently, gave a simple physics lesson on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, the implications of which awed the audience with a sense of world-historical significance, and implied an indictment of the present administration so utterly devastating that it made Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 look like a Bush apologia.

Dr. Jones argues that the physics behind the government’s explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11 do not make sense, and that a better (and perhaps only) explanation for their collapse was that they were demolished, exactly the way structural engineers bring down large buildings, by pre-positioned explosive devices set off in precise sequences. He argues that the 650 degree Celsius temperature of burning jet fuel would not have been hot enough to even bend the steel girders of the WTC Towers, let alone to melt or evaporate them, as recovered beams indicate. And even if it was hot enough to evaporate the steel, the towers should not have collapsed as they did, pancaking so perfectly into their own footprints. On the rare times when such structures have failed (always due to earthquakes), they have toppled over sideways. The towers would have had to have been perfectly sliced, at every point along a horizontal plane at exactly the same instant, for something even resembling a pancaking effect to occur. And even if they did somehow pancake perfectly into their own footprints due to a structural failure, they would not have done it in the time it took for them to collapse, falling at essentially the speed of an apple dropped from the top of one of the towers, with nothing between it and the ground but thin air. The steel and concrete in the floors that collapsed should have taken some measurable time to break, and thus slowed the collapse somewhat as it unfolded. And even if it did collapse, at super speed, phwack phwack phwack, floor by floor, as fast as an apple falling through the air, impelled by the weight of the decapitated structure above it, its solid steel frame severed like a head by a flaming guillotine, that does not explain the molten steel seen at the Ground Zero clean-up site many days after the event. What could have caused such heat? asked Professor Jones.

And on it went, point by point, for almost two hours. Nothing about the physics of “what we know” about 9/11 seemed to add up. And all that’s not to mention the mysterious collapse of the forgotten WTC-7, the third steel-frame building that imploded due to fire, not only that day, but in the history of architectural design--the building that was not hit by a plane, that was surrounded by other buildings equally impacted but structurally undamaged by the collapse of the towers, that, with no jet fuel or violent impact, but allegedly due to a small number of scattered “debris fires,” collapsed, pancaking perfectly into its own footprint, looking exactly like video images of buildings being demolished by pre-positioned explosive devices. Playing the one available video of WTC-7 collapsing at slow speed, Dr. Jones used his laser pointer to indicate the explosive “squibs” clearly seen shooting their way up the sides of the building as it collapsed from the top center down. He showed still images of similar micro-explosions on the sides of the Twin Towers, with steel beams clearly visible, ejected out of the sides of the buildings, ahead of the dust, blown out before the above portions collapsed.

It is a devastating presentation, and one could feel the disequilibrium of 150 minds reeling at once. The defining moment of contemporary American experience suddenly lost its definition. What is the meaning of 9/11? What really happened that day? If these things are true, the implications clearly point to some kind of “inside job” involving the government of the United States of America. (The Department of Defense, the FBI, and the CIA all had offices in the mysteriously collapsed WTC-7. Is it reasonable that outside terrorists could have infiltrated that building and filled it with explosives? ) If the WTC was brought down by pre-positioned explosive devices, somehow facilitated and covered up by the government, it would be the most audacious conspiracy in human history. When before have so many people been so spectacularly bamboozled, with so much death and destruction, and such massive implications for geo-politics? Never, that’s when.

And that is the problem Dr. Jones is facing with his research. People have knee-jerk reactions to “conspiracy theories,” at least to the ones that do not make it into their established and trusted news outlets. And the mainstream media, so far, despite a blip or two in the New York Times, is taking a pass on this story. Yes, my skeptical friends believe that the Bush administration cynically smeared the war records of both John Kerry and John McCain during the 2000 presidential election through the use of shill agencies. Yes, they believe there was suppression of black voters in Florida, and other schemes to cheat their way into the White House in the 2000 election. Yes, they believe the administration conspired to rig the intelligence they used to justify their invasion of Iraq. Yes, if they are regular readers of The New Yorker, they believe that the election fraud was worse in 2004, with rigged ballot machines, in Ohio in particular, being used to great effect. And, yes, they believe in massive wrong-doing and cover-up regarding October Surprise and the Iran/Contra affair, as well as the CIA-orchestrated overthrows of democracies in Chile and Iran, to name only two well-known examples. But no, they don’t believe in conspiracy theories.

These are hardcore leftists who refuse to even entertain the question of whether science supports the conclusion that the planes brought the towers down. “Too many people would have to know about it for them to get away with it,” one friend said. “They’re not that smart,” said another. “It’s just not plausible,” said a third. The issues raised by Professor Jones are not breaking along standard political fissures. People’s relative amounts of skepticism and credulity, rather than their political affiliations, seem to determine their openness to giving the professor’s analysis a hearing. Jones himself claims to have been a lifelong Republican, but now affiliates with no political party. The audience Wednesday night was definitely not the usual suspects of progressive professors and pierced and tattooed activists and students who regularly gather to share criticism of the President, although there were a few of those, too. Mostly, they looked like a cross-section of average middle-Americans. But by the end of the evening, it is no exaggeration to say that most had become political radicals, not of the left and the right, but of the right and the wrong.

If Dr. Jones’s work ever breaks into the mainstream media, and the rest of the country reacts the way the Utah County audience reacted, traditional political divisions will evaporate like steel beams exploded with thermite, and the whole lot of them, the Democrats and the Republicans, will be swept away, along with the military-industrial complex that has apparently managed to subvert the constitution of these United States and to con the American public, mesmerized by the shock of 9/11 and hypnotized by spell-binding incantations of freedom and patriotism, into going along with their mad plans for world domination.

Physics Professor Steven Jones Packs Lecture Hall and Overflow Rooms
Huge Crowd Hears of 9/11 Big Lie, WTC Controlled Demolition

Communications Professor Philip Gordon will be writing a story on the talk for MUJCA-NET. Look for it to be up in a few days at http://mujca.com

http://www.gnn.tv/B12675 (great pictures!)
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/163875/3/

Questions remain from 9/11 report, professor says
ANNA CHANG-YEN - Daily Herald

A BYU physics professor speaking on Wednesday night implied a government cover-up of what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001, and cast doubt on the blame placed on Osama bin Laden.

Professor Steven E. Jones suggested before the attacks the Bush administration was seeking a way to increase military spending and invade Iraq. The ensuing attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan have created most of Muslims' disdain for America, he said.

He spoke at Utah Valley State College to a packed lecture room, and by video to adjacent overflow rooms, sponsored by the Center for the Study of Ethics.

Center director David Keller said, "The collapse of the World Trade Center buildings illustrates a strange convergence of physics, engineering, ethics and politics."
(More at: http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/163875/3/)

But did he answer who killed JFK?

Interesting, only effective is some sort of major media outlet picks it up.

we'll see where this goes.

Your scientist is full of shit. Nobody has said that the steel supports melted or "evaporated". They were weakened by the heat in much the same way as a spring heated to red hot will not be springy anymore. It will become soft and easily shaped. That's what happened to the internal steel supports.

He also said that the building shouldn't have pancaked because buildings that fell in earthquakes often fall more towards one side or the other. He's an idiot. The towers didn't fall because of an earthquake. In fact, they would have had to tip 100 or more feet to one side in order to avoid falling straight down.

Also he claims that the WTC fell at free-fall speed. His exact words were "they would not have done it in the time it took for them to collapse, falling at essentially the speed of an apple dropped from the top of one of the towers, with nothing between it and the ground but thin air." If he's right then Gallileo was wrong about objects falling at the same rate, because you can clearly see debris falling faster than the collapsing tower.

Where do you find such morons? Why do you pay attention to them?

This suprised me greatly coming out of a BYU professor. We'll see how long he keeps his job...

(I live in the same general area, and the Y bothers me. I've dealt with them and their policies enough to know that)

The heat may not have come from the jet fuel alone. There was a lot of burning material inside the buildings, and a firestorm effect may have been sucking air in, creating a blowtorch effect.

Also, the 'explosions' preceeding the falling towers could easily be the result of internal supports breaking as the upper floors collapsed. A wave propagation sort of thing.

And the not tipping over thing, who cares? It's not as if there is a precedent for a skyscraper collapse.

The heat may not have come from the jet fuel alone. There was a lot of burning material inside the buildings, and a firestorm effect may have been sucking air in, creating a blowtorch effect.

Also, the 'explosions' preceeding the falling towers could easily be the result of internal supports breaking as the upper floors collapsed. A wave propagation sort of thing.

And the not tipping over thing, who cares? It's not as if there is a precedent for a skyscraper collapse.
The fire's heat could have been boosted significantly by the aluminum airframe oxidizing (burning). Ever try to melt aluminum in air? It's impossible to do without making aluminum oxide. That's an exothermic reaction. It adds heat.

He argues that the 650 degree Celsius temperature of burning jet fuel would not have been hot enough to even bend the steel girders of the WTC Towers, let alone to melt or evaporate them, as recovered beams indicate. And even if it was hot enough to evaporate the steel, the towers should not have collapsed as they did, pancaking so perfectly into their own footprints. On the rare times when such structures have failed (always due to earthquakes), they have toppled over sideways. The towers would have had to have been perfectly sliced, at every point along a horizontal plane at exactly the same instant, for something even resembling a pancaking effect to occur. And even if they did somehow pancake perfectly into their own footprints due to a structural failure, they would not have done it in the time it took for them to collapse, falling at essentially the speed of an apple dropped from the top of one of the towers, with nothing between it and the ground but thin air.

Wrong.

Steel, during a fire, quickly loses its strength. The same fire that would scorch, but not destroy, an oak beam, would cause steel to lose its structural strength. Ask any structural engineer or NFPA Code specialist.

Seismic events cause buildings to move along the 3 major axes (left-right, back-front, up-down) and can not be compared to the structural failure of a building that is only being accelerated downwards through the force of gravity.

The third argument has already been dealt with in this thread.

It would appear that this physicist is a moron.

For more info. read Fundamentals of Building Construction by Edward Allen. I can post page numbers if you want.

And even if it was hot enough to evaporate the steel, the towers should not have collapsed as they did, pancaking so perfectly into their own footprints. On the rare times when such structures have failed (always due to earthquakes), they have toppled over sideways.
Most skyscrapers have a central column providing the support, whereas the twin towers had an unusual design whereby the external frame supported the building. The pressures are distributed such that you would expect a floor to fail simultaneously all the way around once one side had started to go, leading to the observed 'piledriver' effect.

I know a couple of Physics PhD's who thought that they had produced a cold fusion reaction, too. Time and a little scrutiny disproved that. Thus, too, will this charade fall apart.

Yeah. Controlled demolition! Yeah and the Pentagon was hit by a missile not a plane! Yeah and the CIA was behind it all! Yeah and the suicide bombers are all still alive! So are the passengers of the plane! Tinfoil hats will protect you from the NWO! Quick, write a book about it and sell it! 9/11 sells!

This is basicly a recap of the flash animation about 9/11 which has been around for a few years now. Nothing new, nothing not discredited.

I don't really find anything suspicious with the WTCs. But something is out of place with the Pentagon. FBI release the 3 tapes of the attack that you are keeping if your story is true!

Well he's definately wrong about one thing: Muslims actually can bend the laws of physics.

Well he's definately wrong about one thing: Muslims actually can bend the laws of physics.

That is so cool. Do you think they could come up with a holodeck?

wonder if he took the age of the building and the materials into account?

Just what is he a professor of? Is he like the economics guy from Texas who started a buzz because he was fired from the Bush admin?

Do you think they could come up with a holodeck?
Would holodeck sex be sinful? :confused:

Would holodeck sex be sinful? :confused:

I assume churches would consider it an advanced form of masturbation. So probably yes.

I don't really find anything suspicious with the WTCs. But something is out of place with the Pentagon. FBI release the 3 tapes of the attack that you are keeping if your story is true!

Yeah, because showing exactly how and where to attack the Pentagon is good for national security.

That is so cool. Do you think they could come up with a holodeck?

I been workin' on that, but it seems the Dark Side is clouding my powers. Troubled by this, are we.

Yeah, because showing exactly how and where to attack the Pentagon is good for national security.
Well then the terrorists did a terrible job assuming that they were to kill as many people as possible due to the fact they hit the part being renovated also with the least people :P

I assume churches would consider it an advanced form of masturbation. So probably yes.
Perverts. :mad:

I know a couple of Physics PhD's who thought that they had produced a cold fusion reaction, too. Time and a little scrutiny disproved that. Thus, too, will this charade fall apart.
IIRC, they were from BYU as well.

Perhaps the BYU science departments are crap.

I don't really find anything suspicious with the WTCs. But something is out of place with the Pentagon. FBI release the 3 tapes of the attack that you are keeping if your story is true!

I saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Ok?

It's bad enough that the general public are virtual scientific illiterates. There is no excuse for this professor. I hope BYU does the right thing and fires him.

I saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Ok?
No you didn't you were under the influence of this. Clicky (http://www.thewednesdayreport.com/twr/bz.htm)

Hallucinogenic chemical weapons were used to convince onlookers that they actually saw a plane hit the pentagon.

I found the article incredibly interesting and I tend to be a little open-minded when it comes to quacky conspiracy theories...so rather than write this man off as a lunatic immediately, I decided I'd wikify him and maybe take a look at some of his credentials. Wikipedia turned up some fascinating information about him.

In 1973, Jones earned his bachelors degree in physics, magna cum laude with honors, from Brigham Young University, and his PhD in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his PhD research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

Well, that's all fine and dandy but what does it mean? What exactly is Vanderbilt?

Vanderbilt is one of North America's top research institutions and is a member of the Association of American Universities, an origanization comprising the sixty leading reaserach universities in North America, to whose membership Vanderbilt was elected in 1950.

The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) is a U.S. National Laboratory operated by Stanford University under the programmatic direction of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science. The SLAC research program centers on experimental and theoretical research in elementary particle physics using electron beams and a broad program of research in atomic and solid-state physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine using synchrotron radiation.[1] The 3 kilometer (1.9 mile) long underground accelerator is the longest linear accelerator in the world, and is claimed to be "the world's straightest object."[2] The above-ground klystron gallery atop the beamline is the longest building in the United States.

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) (previously known at various times as Site Y, Los Alamos Laboratory, and Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory) is a United States Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratory, managed by the University of California, located in Los Alamos, New Mexico. The laboratory is one of the largest multidisciplinary institutions in the world. It is the largest institution and the largest employer in northern New Mexico with approximately 10,400 University of California employees plus approximately 2,800 contractor personnel.

Approximately one-third of the laboratory's technical staff members are physicists, one-fourth are engineers, one-sixth are chemists and materials scientists, and the remainder work in mathematics and computational science, biological science, geoscience, and other disciplines. Professional scientists and students also come to Los Alamos as visitors to participate in scientific projects. The staff collaborates with universities and industry in both basic and applied research to develop resources for the future. The annual budget is approximately USD 2.2 billion.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm impressed. Clearly this man has gone through years of extensive schooling in very high-brow, excruciatingly boring subjects. I'm not sure you folks gave him a fair shake when you read the article...I'm not even sure if all of you even read the article. But clearly this is an intelligent man we're talking about. But what about the scientific community? Has he contributed anything worthwhile?

In the mid 1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists demonstrated an interesting new effect related to the potential for harnessing energy from cold fusion, now also referred to as muon-catalyzed fusion. The Jones process – not to be confused with the Cold fusion research of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann – did not produce excess heat, and therefore did not provide a source of energy. The Jones process, through measurement of charged particles, demonstrated excellent validation that nuclear processes can occur in a relatively simple, room temperature experiment.

Jones did not claim that any useful energy was produced. Rather, he reported slightly more neutrons were detected from experiments than could be expected from normal sources. Jones said the result suggested at least the possibility of fusion, though unlikely to be useful as an energy source. A New York Times article entitled Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion notes that while peer-reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research, they did not apply such criticism to Jones's much more modest findings.[2] The reviewing physicists stated that "Dr. Jones is a careful scientist."

Only limited interest in funding research pertaining to cold fusion as a potential energy source has resulted from such research.

Fascinating. So the man's done some incredible research work. The more and more I read about him, the less inclined I am to believe he's insane. But what does Jones know? He's just an immensely intelligent, well-schooled scientist...the arm-chair physicists and engineers on NS clearly have him debunked for the fraud he is. :rolleyes:

Keep in mind this is only a hypothesis, or so Jones claims. Also keep in mind this paper he wrote has gone under critical peer review and passed, as noted by Jones himself.

He (Professor Jones) said he feels “a bit awkward” that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through. “My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval,” Jones said. “The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate.” Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.

Say what you will, but this is a qualified man we're dealing with. I'm not saying you should buy his story; I'm merely stating that this is an intelligent human being, not some fringe scientist. He's got merit and we shouldn't overlook that.

lol the guy should be examined by doctors. one i doubt anyone can tell the effect that much fuel would have on steel unless u calucated it with a super computer. two whos to say that the terriorists didnt have explosive materials on them as well. three there had to be items like heavy duty installation and other building materials, plus office equipment and other materials that burned. with all of that combined i would imagine it got pretty hot....

plus i want to see any building that is going to survive the impact of a plane that big going that fast even without fuel. the force alone is enough to cause serious structure damage.

plus i see no reason why anyone in the USA would want to take down the buildings. Even if one would claim so Bush could go to war in Iraq, there are far easier was to do that without causing this kind of an attack.

I saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Ok?
proof please?

I found the article incredibly interesting and I tend to be a little open-minded when it comes to quacky conspiracy theories...so rather than write this man off as a lunatic immediately, I decided I'd wikify him and maybe take a look at some of his credentials. Wikipedia turned up some fascinating information about him.



Well, that's all fine and dandy but what does it mean? What exactly is Vanderbilt?







I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm impressed. Clearly this man has gone through years of extensive schooling in very high-brow, excruciatingly boring subjects. I'm not sure you folks gave him a fair shake when you read the article...I'm not even sure if all of you even read the article. But clearly this is an intelligent man we're talking about. But what about the scientific community? Has he contributed anything worthwhile?



Fascinating. So the man's done some incredible research work. The more and more I read about him, the less inclined I am to believe he's insane. But what does Jones know? He's just an immensely intelligent, well-schooled scientist...the arm-chair physicists and engineers on NS clearly have him debunked for the fraud he is. :rolleyes:

Keep in mind this is only a hypothesis, or so Jones claims. Also keep in mind this paper he wrote has gone under critical peer review and passed, as noted by Jones himself.



Say what you will, but this is a qualified man we're dealing with. I'm not saying you should buy his story; I'm merely stating that this is an intelligent human being, not some fringe scientist. He's got merit and we shouldn't overlook that.Smart people make mistakes too. Also he's out of his element here. He's not an engineer who deals with building construction or demolition. An argument from authority is about as dumb as letting Albert Einstein replace your fuel injectors.

Aw jeez,
NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN!
But to debunk your conspiracy theories, Popular Mechanics debunks the 9/11 Myths (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html)

proof please?
In court, I would qualify easily as an eyewitness. I can also provide other people as witnesses to the fact that I saw it (and they saw it as well).

But what does Jones know? He's just an immensely intelligent, well-schooled scientist...the arm-chair physicists and engineers on NS clearly have him debunked for the fraud he is. :rolleyes:

Well, since he's only saying what arm-chair conspiracy theory engineers have been saying for years: controlled demolition, government involvement, blah blah fucking blah.

Whether he's immensely intelligent or not is irrelevent. "I'm smart" is not a convincing argument. His particular arguments have been refuted by other engineers and other scientists already. There is no need for me personally to go through the trouble of debunking every dumb conspiracy theory every time someone posts it.

And it's never posted as a hypothesis. It's posted as "truth." TEH R34L TRUHT about 911. Like at 911truth.org. People who believe this kind of thing have always believed it from the moment the towers fell. And have been wanking off to conspiracy theories about it ever since.

Smart people make mistakes too. Also he's out of his element here. He's not an engineer who deals with building construction or demolition. An argument from authority is about as dumb as letting Albert Einstein replace your fuel injectors.

Well, hold on there.

Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, in Idaho Falls, Idaho, from 1979 to 1985, where he was a senior engineering specialist.

I'm still not writing him off.

Well, hold on there.

I'm still not writing him off.
The problem is that I've heard too many more people who are extremely qualified structural engineers (including engineers who designed the WTC), who explained and demonstrated in lab tests the failure modes that you find so hard to believe.

Failure modes that have been validated by tests. Not by some individual's ideas.

Put it this way - if you're not a civil engineer, structural engineer, or someone experienced in skyscraper design and failure, and don't have the ability to test your theory, you're just flapping in the breeze.

Well, hold on there.



I'm still not writing him off.
Considering the fact that even I found errors in his conspiracy theory I'm writing him off.

In court, I would qualify easily as an eyewitness. I can also provide other people as witnesses to the fact that I saw it (and they saw it as well).
again, proof please?

Otherwise i'll go on believing you were nowhere near the pentagon and are making stuff up to try and stiffle the discussion.

Aw jeez,
NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN!
But to debunk your conspiracy theories, Popular Mechanics debunks the 9/11 Myths

Thanks for the link. I'll be sure to read up on it tonight when I get home from work.

The problem is that I've heard too many more people who are extremely qualified structural engineers (including engineers who designed the WTC), who explained and demonstrated in lab tests the failure modes that you find so hard to believe.

It's not a matter of me finding it hard to believe. You're reading me wrong here-I'm not saying I believe Jones full-heartedly. I'm just interested with the argument he's presented and don't believe he should be written off as incompetent.

Failure modes that have been validated by tests. Not by some individual's ideas.

Put it this way - if you're not a civil engineer, structural engineer, or someone experienced in skyscraper design and failure, and don't have the ability to test your theory, you're just flapping in the breeze.

I'd be most appreciative if you'd post some links up in here. It's not that I doubt your word--rather, I'd like to read these conflicting opinions and see what there is to be said, and I'm sort of pressed for time right now.

Considering the fact that even I found errors in his conspiracy theory I'm writing him off.

Seeing as how you're a qualified physicist and/or engineer. Oh wait.

again, proof please?

Otherwise i'll go on believing you were nowhere near the pentagon and are making stuff up to try and stiffle the discussion.

Get your Google Maps out.

At the time, I worked at
Qwest Communications
4250 North Fairfax Drive Arlington

for the Dialup Network Division.

I was used to arriving late for work, and I used to park on top of the parking garage at the Ballston Common Mall (http://www.ballston-common.com/) where I would park on the top floor of the parking garage.

Just before the plane hit, I had just gotten out of my car, and was about to close the door, when I looked over the top of my car, and saw the plane descend from my right to my left and into the Pentagon.

Very clear line of sight.

In a court of law, since my employment at the time, my habits at the time (which could be verified by my boss), and the person I carpooled with could verify my statements.

Also, I would appear on the Ballston Common security camera film at that time, and I would appear on the Qwest building's security cameras.

After seeing the crash, I went to the Qwest building, where they told us to go home - I went back to the garage and watched the smoke and the helicopters and the fighter jets overhead (F-16Cs with AMRAAM mounted). I stayed there for three hours - traffic was so bad you couldn't even get out of the garage.

I was at this location
4238 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, Virginia

Go to maps.google.com.

I was eight stories up in the air, on top of a parking garage.

Looking east - southeast.

Switch to Satellite mode in google maps and move slightly east from the garage location.

You'll see the Pentagon. The plane came in from the south over that major highway and slammed into the Pentagon.

1. http://mujca.com

2. http://www.gnn.tv/B12675 (great pictures!)

3. http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/163875/3/
(More at: http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/163875/3/)
1. Dr. Kevin Barrett has spent most of his "career" promoting the conspiracy "theories" of an ultra-moonbat, one "Dr." David Griffin, who calls himself one of America’s notable theologians, and who teaches ethics and theology at Claremont School of Theology in California. Griffin self-published a book with his "theories" about 9-11, called "The New Pearl Harbor." He is also an expert on - and this is not a spoof! - the religious life of space aliens! Really! Understandably, he is very popular with the anarcho-fascist Indymedia web sites. In late September, Griffin was even asked to give expert testimony at hearings sponsored by Cynthia McKinney and the Congressional Black Caucus investigating the 9/11 Commission Report.

Barrett also runs a conspiracist web site calling itself "The Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 911 Truth." It is devoted to promoting the "theory" that bin Laden and his boys did not knock down the World Trade Center Towers at all; rather, they were brought down by a "controlled demolition" inside the buildings. It was all an "Inside Job", warn these ultras. Griffin and Barrett presented their "theory" at the University of Wisconsin earlier this year.

The MJC Alliance group is run by Kevin Barrett of Madison, Wisconsin, evidently a recent recipient of a PhD in the Department of African Languages and Literature at the University of Wisonsin, telling us volumes about the academic standards in that department. He calls himself a scholar of Islam and literature. He runs the "Alliance" together with Imam Faiz Khan M.D. of New York City, a conspiracy nut who teaches at Long Island Jewish Hospital. Apparently that hospital job is the source of the word "Jewish" in the group’s "Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance" name. Barrett grew up in a family of lapsed Unitarians and converted to Islam in 1993. The "Alliance" group inlcudes the Swedish neonazi who sometimes calls himself "Israel Shamir".

2. gnn = Guerrilla News Network. Nuff said.

3. This newspaper seems to be the only legitimate one quoted. It bills itself as "Central Utah's Newspaper." It would be only natural for this newspaper to publish about anything newsworthy coming out of Brigham Young.

All in all, just another wild conspiracy theory built on a lack of understanding, virtually no facts, and the left's wishful thinking.

1. Dr. Kevin Barrett has spent most of his "career" promoting the conspiracy "theories" of an ultra-moonbat, one "Dr." David Griffin, who calls himself one of America’s notable theologians, and who teaches ethics and theology at Claremont School of Theology in California. Griffin self-published a book with his "theories" about 9-11, called "The New Pearl Harbor." He is also an expert on - and this is not a spoof! - the religious life of space aliens! Really! Understandably, he is very popular with the anarcho-fascist Indymedia web sites. In late September, Griffin was even asked to give expert testimony at hearings sponsored by Cynthia McKinney and the Congressional Black Caucus investigating the 9/11 Commission Report.

Barrett also runs a conspiracist web site calling itself "The Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 911 Truth." It is devoted to promoting the "theory" that bin Laden and his boys did not knock down the World Trade Center Towers at all; rather, they were brought down by a "controlled demolition" inside the buildings. It was all an "Inside Job", warn these ultras. Griffin and Barrett presented their "theory" at the University of Wisconsin earlier this year.

The MJC Alliance group is run by Kevin Barrett of Madison, Wisconsin, evidently a recent recipient of a PhD in the Department of African Languages and Literature at the University of Wisonsin, telling us volumes about the academic standards in that department. He calls himself a scholar of Islam and literature. He runs the "Alliance" together with Imam Faiz Khan M.D. of New York City, a conspiracy nut who teaches at Long Island Jewish Hospital. Apparently that hospital job is the source of the word "Jewish" in the group’s "Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance" name. Barrett grew up in a family of lapsed Unitarians and converted to Islam in 1993. The "Alliance" group inlcudes the Swedish neonazi who sometimes calls himself "Israel Shamir".

Dr. Jones can't be held accountable for the types of people that endorse his theory. I urge you to read back in this thread over the list of Jones' credentials I posted; you'll find Jones is nothing like this Barrett.

All in all, just another wild conspiracy theory built on a lack of understanding, virtually no facts, and the left's wishful thinking.

I think it's fair to say you based your opinion on the websites that posted Dr. Jones' story, and not Dr. Jones' presentation, his credentials, or the original article posted. You might want to go through this thread a second time and read what you originally ignored.

Seeing as how you're a qualified physicist and/or engineer. Oh wait.
Seeing as how it doesn't take an engineer to know that metal gets weak if you make it red hot and seeing as how I've done some amateure metal work I'd say that I'm qualified enough to debunk his bullshit. Do the experiment I suggested. Take a small spring and heat it in the flame of a cigarette lighter until it glows just slightly. Then let it cool (don't want to burn yourself) and see if it's still as hard and springy as before. It will be soft and pliable and will suffer metal fatigue more easily.

Seeing as how it doesn't take an engineer to know that metal gets weak if you make it red hot and seeing as how I've done some amateure metal work I'd say that I'm qualified enough to debunk his bullshit. Do the experiment I suggested. Take a small spring and heat it in the flame of a cigarette lighter until it glows just slightly. Then let it cool (don't want to burn yourself) and see if it's still as hard and springy as before. It will be soft and pliable and will suffer metal fatigue more easily.

Annealing.

You can turn 4140 chrome-moly (which properly heat treated, will have a tensile strength of over 120,000 psi), and anneal it to where most anyone can bend it with their bare hands like they were Superman.

http://www.efunda.com/processes/heat_treat/softening/annealing.cfm

Dr. Jones can't be held accountable for the types of people that endorse his theory. I urge you to read back in this thread over the list of Jones' credentials I posted; you'll find Jones is nothing like this Barrett.

I think it's fair to say you based your opinion on the websites that posted Dr. Jones' story, and not Dr. Jones' presentation, his credentials, or the original article posted. You might want to go through this thread a second time and read what you originally ignored.
Oh. You mean this guy?


BYU administration and faculty distance themselves from Dr. Steven Jones
November 29th, 2005

BYU issued this statement

Statement Regarding Steve Jones’s Paper
SUMMARY: A statement has been released in connection with a paper recently posted by Dr. Steven Jones in the Department of Physics & Astronomy.

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

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

The Ira Fulton College of Engineering added a sentence to this statement saying, “The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.”

Oh. You mean this guy?


BYU administration and faculty distance themselves from Dr. Steven Jones
November 29th, 2005

BYU issued this statement

Statement Regarding Steve Jones’s Paper
SUMMARY: A statement has been released in connection with a paper recently posted by Dr. Steven Jones in the Department of Physics & Astronomy.

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

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

The Ira Fulton College of Engineering added a sentence to this statement saying, “The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.”


SLAM! *high fives Eutrusca*

I'm sorry, you'll all have to excuse me, but I'm going to propose the thought that everyone on here is really out of it. A point that I think everyone has to consider is that few people on here are who they say they are. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the percentage of Nation States players who regulary visit the boards and happen to have an advanced degree in physics or structural engineering is very, very small. In fact, I daresay it approaches zero.
To establish a point about who plays nation states, it's students. Even money that 80% of the players are either University or Secondary Education students.

This brings me back to the people here are out of it. Having established that nobody on here qualifies as an expert, we are left to cite sources and quote war. This leads to the question of, "Why is your source any more right than mine." This question does not have an answer.

So, if nobody is an expert, and nobody's source has any qualification that makes it better than anybody elses source, where does that leave us? Exactly. I'm sure you're all wonderful people, but it is just simply impractical to assume that you all happen to have access to even the most primitive of Beowulph(sp) Clusters to even start at computing the reality of the "facts" that you seem to inherantly have.

A spring is not an 8 foot I-beam. Only an 8 foot I-beam is an 8 foot I-beam. Even those vary between batches. I hope that helps to illustrate the point that it would be very very difficult, if not impossible to make an accurate statement either way, if for no other reason (bearing in mind there are other reasons) than that the building materials are unavailable to analyze. Amealing a tin can with your oven does not prove anything. Period.

I'm sorry, you'll all have to excuse me, but I'm going to propose the thought that everyone on here is really out of it. A point that I think everyone has to consider is that few people on here are who they say they are. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the percentage of Nation States players who regulary visit the boards and happen to have an advanced degree in physics or structural engineering is very, very small. In fact, I daresay it approaches zero.
To establish a point about who plays nation states, it's students. Even money that 80% of the players are either University or Secondary Education students.

This brings me back to the people here are out of it. Having established that nobody on here qualifies as an expert, we are left to cite sources and quote war. This leads to the question of, "Why is your source any more right than mine." This question does not have an answer.

So, if nobody is an expert, and nobody's source has any qualification that makes it better than anybody elses source, where does that leave us? Exactly. I'm sure you're all wonderful people, but it is just simply impractical to assume that you all happen to have access to even the most primitive of Beowulph(sp) Clusters to even start at computing the reality of the "facts" that you seem to inherantly have.

A spring is not an 8 foot I-beam. Only an 8 foot I-beam is an 8 foot I-beam. Even those vary between batches. I hope that helps to illustrate the point that it would be very very difficult, if not impossible to make an accurate statement either way, if for no other reason (bearing in mind there are other reasons) than that the building materials are unavailable to analyze. Amealing a tin can with your oven does not prove anything. Period.

I hope you realize that there have already been scientific studies using the same I-beam materials, and analyzing the I-beams from the actual towers proved that the annealing took place. It's just not possible to make an assertion like that BYU scientists, with no other studies, no examination of materials, and get over the fact that the materials themselves were analyzed by teams of structural engineers - and the annealing took place.

We might also take a look a few posts back, where the BYU administration took a dim view of the good doctor's ideas about the WTC collapse.

I hope you realize that there have already been scientific studies using the same I-beam materials, and analyzing the I-beams from the actual towers proved that the annealing took place. It's just not possible to make an assertion like that BYU scientists, with no other studies, no examination of materials, and get over the fact that the materials themselves were analyzed by teams of structural engineers - and the annealing took place.

We might also take a look a few posts back, where the BYU administration took a dim view of the good doctor's ideas about the WTC collapse.

I'll tackle these in reverse order.

1: Are BYU admins scientists? Established Physics PhDs with credentials? No. Ergo their opinions on the matter should carry as much weight as mine should. None.

2: The materials themselves may have been analyzed, but only a small portion of them and only after a significant time had passed, releaving the study of most relevance. Secondly, I'm sorry to admit an ammount of ignorance on the matter of teams of structural engineers analyzing the building materials. Could you give me a little light reading material? (I.E a link.)

3: The same I-beam materials point is negated in my first post. It's just a fact that no two batches of anything will be exactly the same.

Edit: That said, I do full heartedly agree with you that it is irresponsible for such an assertion to be made under the circumstances.

I'm sorry, you'll all have to excuse me, but I'm going to propose the thought that everyone on here is really out of it. A point that I think everyone has to consider is that few people on here are who they say they are. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the percentage of Nation States players who regulary visit the boards and happen to have an advanced degree in physics or structural engineering is very, very small. In fact, I daresay it approaches zero.
To establish a point about who plays nation states, it's students. Even money that 80% of the players are either University or Secondary Education students.

This brings me back to the people here are out of it. Having established that nobody on here qualifies as an expert, we are left to cite sources and quote war. This leads to the question of, "Why is your source any more right than mine." This question does not have an answer.

So, if nobody is an expert, and nobody's source has any qualification that makes it better than anybody elses source, where does that leave us? Exactly. I'm sure you're all wonderful people, but it is just simply impractical to assume that you all happen to have access to even the most primitive of Beowulph(sp) Clusters to even start at computing the reality of the "facts" that you seem to inherantly have.

A spring is not an 8 foot I-beam. Only an 8 foot I-beam is an 8 foot I-beam. Even those vary between batches. I hope that helps to illustrate the point that it would be very very difficult, if not impossible to make an accurate statement either way, if for no other reason (bearing in mind there are other reasons) than that the building materials are unavailable to analyze. Amealing a tin can with your oven does not prove anything. Period.

I have an advanced degree in structural engineering, and have worked as a forensic engineer.. This guy is a high energy physicist and doesn't know what he is talking about.

Further nor do you. I have neither the time nor inclination to explain to you why your 'logic' about I-beams is silly, but suffice to say that any structural elements properties depend not only upon its dimesions and physical properties, but also upon its orientation and load vectors, and load magnitude.

So actually, sometimes, yes, an eight foor I-beam is exactly a spring. Albeit with an extremely high k.

Also, the explainations that many people have bothered to post about the holes in this idiots arguments are pretty much correct - though obviously highly simplified.

Both you and this 'prof' need to go take classes in stability analysis.

So, if nobody is an expert, and nobody's source has any qualification that makes it better than anybody elses source, where does that leave us? Exactly. I'm sure you're all wonderful people, but it is just simply impractical to assume that you all happen to have access to even the most primitive of Beowulph(sp) Clusters to even start at computing the reality of the "facts" that you seem to inherantly have.

You're right. I'm not an expert. That's why, when designing fire resistant protection for steel structures, I refer you to the National Building Code for Canadian projects, the National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code for USian projects and the Handbook of Steel Construction for mass and density measurements. People's lives depend on this information being right.

I'm not an expert, but this information has been gathered and tested by hundreds of experts with thousands of years of experience.

I have an advanced degree in structural engineering, and have worked as a forensic engineer.

Assuming you are from the USA, do you guys use the Blue Book for steel design, or is that a Canadian thing?

You're going to have to forgive me, Lacadaemon, but bullshit. Anybody can come onto the internet and say, "I have an advanced degree." Since anyone can do it, it is irresponsible to take anyone's word on it. So once again, bullshit. Sorry.

Admittedly, I am a High School Student, but somehow, I'm going to risk it and say that your expertise in the matter is only slightly more than mine, if at all. This is especially true since you don't talk like somone who knows what he's talking about.

Finally, Lacadaemon, you hit one of my worst pet peeves. You said "your logic". I was taught logic growing up. Logic is static, it does not change from person to person. It is, or it is flawed. Different people act differently upon the results of logic, and draw different conclusions, but logic is still logic. Term and Predicate logic are not subject to difference of opinion between two people analyzing the same data. The same data will always produce the same results, which is what makes logic so wonderful. There are very very solid, clear, pronounced rights and wrongs. Please don't call something a person's logic. You're reffering to therewith what they do with the logic, not the logic itself. Thank you.

You're right. I'm not an expert. That's why, when designing fire resistant protection for steel structures, I refer you to the National Building Code for Canadian projects, the National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code for USian projects and the Handbook of Steel Construction for mass and density measurements. People's lives depend on this information being right.

I'm not an expert, but this information has been gathered and tested by hundreds of experts with thousands of years of experience.

A.I.S.C. ASD sixth edition, I think is the appropriate code to analyse the WTC collapse with.

It's also possible that the WTC was exempt from the NYC building and fire codes owing to it being a Port Authority building.

650C is plenty enough heat to have weakened the steel and make it lose 90% of its support. The fireproofing was sprayed on originally and was knocked off by the original blast of the plane. The idiot (I M Pei, I believe) who designed the towers designed it so they would pancake. But, because Larry Silverstein or whoever was a damn cheapskate Pei had to make a cheaper plan which was making the structure on the inside and in effect hanging the floors on the structure. Even if several planes hit a building made with a steel superstructure, most of it, if not all, would still be standing. The TT did not have a superstructure. I swear they said on the news that 7 was demolished on purpose to prevent problems.

You're going to have to forgive me, Lacadaemon, but bullshit. Anybody can come onto the internet and say, "I have an advanced degree." Since anyone can do it, it is irresponsible to take anyone's word on it. So once again, bullshit. Sorry.

Admittedly, I am a High School Student, but somehow, I'm going to risk it and say that your expertise in the matter is only slightly more than mine, if at all. This is especially true since you don't talk like somone who knows what he's talking about.

Finally, Lacadaemon, you hit one of my worst pet peeves. You said "your logic". I was taught logic growing up. Logic is static, it does not change from person to person. It is, or it is flawed. Different people act differently upon the results of logic, and draw different conclusions, but logic is still logic. Term and Predicate logic are not subject to difference of opinion between two people analyzing the same data. The same data will always produce the same results, which is what makes logic so wonderful. There are very very solid, clear, pronounced rights and wrongs. Please don't call something a person's logic. You're reffering to therewith what they do with the logic, not the logic itself. Thank you.

I seem to recall from my study of logic, a valid argument requires both a correct logical structures, and sound premises. Your premises are not sound - as is clear from your silly assertion about I-beams - and therefore I question your logic. I refer you to An Introduction to Logic by Irving M. Copi for a fuller explaination.

And if you knew anything at all about building collapses such as this, you would be talking about structural stability, not prattling on about I-beams and 'manufacturing variations' (something which is fully anticipated by both the ASD, and LFRD design methods), and which further have nothing to do with the issue of thermal structural response. So I would hazard a guess that your knowledge of the subject is far, far less than mine.

I'm sorry, you'll all have to excuse me, but I'm going to propose the thought that everyone on here is really out of it. A point that I think everyone has to consider is that few people on here are who they say they are. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the percentage of Nation States players who regulary visit the boards and happen to have an advanced degree in physics or structural engineering is very, very small. In fact, I daresay it approaches zero.
To establish a point about who plays nation states, it's students. Even money that 80% of the players are either University or Secondary Education students.

This brings me back to the people here are out of it. Having established that nobody on here qualifies as an expert, we are left to cite sources and quote war. This leads to the question of, "Why is your source any more right than mine." This question does not have an answer.

So, if nobody is an expert, and nobody's source has any qualification that makes it better than anybody elses source, where does that leave us? Exactly. I'm sure you're all wonderful people, but it is just simply impractical to assume that you all happen to have access to even the most primitive of Beowulph(sp) Clusters to even start at computing the reality of the "facts" that you seem to inherantly have.

A spring is not an 8 foot I-beam. Only an 8 foot I-beam is an 8 foot I-beam. Even those vary between batches. I hope that helps to illustrate the point that it would be very very difficult, if not impossible to make an accurate statement either way, if for no other reason (bearing in mind there are other reasons) than that the building materials are unavailable to analyze. Amealing a tin can with your oven does not prove anything. Period.
The metal thing isn't the only part that he got wrong.
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y


1) He claimed the building was collapsing at free fall speeds. Unless Galileo was wrong about objects of different mass falling at the same rate, it would be impossible for debris from the collapse to fall faster than the building itself if it was in free fall. Yet if you watch video of the collapse you see just that happening. [QUOTE]

2) He claims that the buildings shouldn't have "pancaked" in their own footprint. He based that statement on buildings knocked down in Earthquakes. Anybody with a reasonable degree of critical thinking skills knows that a building collapse caused by shaking the building from side to side will cause parts of it to swing past the center of gravity and fall to the side, while a building that collapses because the structural supports under the floors are weakened and can't support the load will fall straight down.

I have an advanced degree in structural engineering, and have worked as a forensic engineer.. This guy is a high energy physicist and doesn't know what he is talking about.

Further nor do you. I have neither the time nor inclination to explain to you why your 'logic' about I-beams is silly, but suffice to say that any structural elements properties depend not only upon its dimesions and physical properties, but also upon its orientation and load vectors, and load magnitude.

So actually, sometimes, yes, an eight foor I-beam is exactly a spring. Albeit with an extremely high k.

Also, the explainations that many people have bothered to post about the holes in this idiots arguments are pretty much correct - though obviously highly simplified.

Both you and this 'prof' need to go take classes in stability analysis.
Precisely. A tenured physics professor doth not a structural engineer make.

Precisely. A tenured physics professor doth not a structural engineer make.

as stated earlier

Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, in Idaho Falls, Idaho, from 1979 to 1985, where he was a senior engineering specialist.

Though I am not saying that his theory is correct, because I don't know, I just wanted to point this out to you because people keep saying otherwise.

Also his paper was apparently peer-reviewed and accepted, he is having it peer-reviewed once again it seems. It would be interesting to see if his theories actually do carry any weight at all.

Those of you that know more about engineering, what is pancaking? Is it collapsing straight down?

as stated earlier



Though I am not saying that his theory is correct, because I don't know, I just wanted to point this out to you because people keep saying otherwise.

Also his paper was apparently peer-reviewed and accepted, he is having it peer-reviewed once again it seems. It would be interesting to see if his theories actually do carry any weight at all.

Those of you that know more about engineering, what is pancaking? Is it collapsing straight down?
Eutrusca looked him up and found that his own university won't back his views partly because he didn't submit them to the proper peer review process.

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.

If you're convinced that it was necessary to place explosive charges on multiple floors and in multiple support structures of the WTC to make it collapse, when was it done? Those buildings always had people in them. Security guards, maintainance personell, repairmen, even people just working late or crashing in their offices. How can you place all those explosives inside the walls where nobody will notice them without being caught in the process?

Eutrusca looked him up and found that his own university won't back his views partly because he didn't submit them to the proper peer review process.


I saw that. I'm guessing that's why it is being resubmitted for review.

If you're convinced that it was necessary to place explosive charges on multiple floors and in multiple support structures of the WTC to make it collapse, when was it done? Those buildings always had people in them. Security guards, maintainance personell, repairmen, even people just working late or crashing in their offices. How can you place all those explosives inside the walls where nobody will notice them without being caught in the process?


Ninjas or as some NSr's might suggest... Chuck Norris.

Ninjas or as some NSr's might suggest... Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris would just threaten to roundhouse kick the buildings and they'd collapse out of fear.

Irregardless (I know that's not a word, but it sounds cool) of the scientific logic and facts of his thesis, I can see the story doing the rounds in certain you_know_who circles reinforcing the joo/neocon/insertgroupsyouhate did it theory.

Reg 9/11 conspiracies, it is not as much science or logic as people wanting to believe that the groups they hate must have done it. That is why these conspiracies won't die. People want to believe in it, irregardless (hehe) of facts.

Those of you that know more about engineering, what is pancaking? Is it collapsing straight down?

Its where a mid-floor gravity system (the columns &c.)fails, and the floors above crash down onto the floor below the failed system. Because the 'new' load is dynamic and not static the transient stress caused is much higher than the structure was designed for at that point, and it consequently fails, causing the floor below it - and the columns which support it - to go also. All the way down sometimes.

So essentially yes.

Chuck Norris would just threaten to roundhouse kick the buildings and they'd collapse out of fear.


You make a very strong and valid point. So then... ninjas.

Its where a mid-floor gravity system (the columns &c.)fails, and the floors above crash down onto the floor below the failed system. Because the 'new' load is dynamic and not static the transient stress caused is much higher than the structure was designed for at that point, and it consequently fails, causing the floor below it - and the columns which support it - to go also. All the way down sometimes.

So essentially yes.

Oh ok thanks.

I imagine that something as tall at the twin towers pancaking would be very heavy and if designed to pancake would pretty much fall at near free-fall speeds then

Thank's for the point of clarification on both building 7 and the non-superstructure, sel appa. That's all seems acceptable, and I see nothing worth challenging therein.

Now on to my new favorite troll, Lacadaemon. I'll try to handle these in a reasonable order.

Yes, a Term Logic argument does require a sound premise whereon to base any further structure, however that is why Predicate logic was developed. The fact is that not all truths could be proven based on a sound premise, so another method, had to be developed. Welcome to Predicate Logic.

While I have not read this particular work, I would be willing to bet it is a Term Logic book. I am, however, very pleasantly surprised that you actually seem to know what logic is, and I will simply assume that your previous statement about "[my] logic" was simply not thoroughly thought out.

Moving down the post, we come to a number of poor assumptions. First, you assume that since I speak about a certain topic, I am unaware of another topic. Non Sequiturs. Then you assume that I spoke about that topic in pertinence to your topic. I did not.

Now we must establish a fact. You are not an expert in metallurgy. I will assume that this is true, and move on to the resulting assertation. Since you are not an expert in metallurgy, you are not qualified to state that manufacturing variations have no effect on thermal structural response. In fact, I'm more than happy to push the burden on it, and if I find the time I might even find you a little reading. The fact is that I do know for a fact that some manufacturing variations do effect thermal veriation responses. That gets into basic chemistry. Certain molecular and supermolecular structures will react differently than the same molecules and supermolecules set in a different structure at the same temperature. Since heating a metal changes its structure, I think we establish the matter that manufacturing variations DO do effect thermal structural response.

Finally, you once again do little other than claim your superiority to me without actually establishing it. I'm willing to admit I'm just a kid. As soon as you stop pretending and do the same, I think this can advance at a much quicker pace. :)

Edit: I'll just go out on a limb and assume you know whereto my message responds. Having read the messages since then, I have nothing to add. :)

Chuck Norris would just threaten to roundhouse kick the buildings and they'd collapse out of fear.
Nahh. He knows I would just have to kick his ass again, like I did that last time. :D

Now we must establish a fact. You are not an expert in metallurgy. I will assume that this is true, and move on to the resulting assertation. Since you are not an expert in metallurgy, you are not qualified to state that manufacturing variations have no effect on thermal structural response. In fact, I'm more than happy to push the burden on it, and if I find the time I might even find you a little reading. The fact is that I do know for a fact that some manufacturing variations do effect thermal veriation responses. That gets into basic chemistry. Certain molecular and supermolecular structures will react differently than the same molecules and supermolecules set in a different structure at the same temperature. Since heating a metal changes its structure, I think we establish the matter that manufacturing variations DO do effect thermal structural response.


I know a little about metallurgy, obviously, and you are laboring under the misaprehension that chemical properties solely dictate the variations in physical properties of any given steel section.

Varation in steel section properties caused by variations in manufacturing can be caused by a variety of different things: Difference in the composition of the alloy, isomerism, or crystalline structure. All of these can arise from different causes, ranging from using non standard pre-cursors, to the type of heating and cooling process during manufacture, and post manufacturing working. e.g. cold rolled sections. Further, service life use of any given section can change its structural response over time. (For example fatigue cycle loading). It all depends.

It is also notable that depending upon how the variation from the "ideal" section arises, its resulting deviation from the 'ideal' thermal response will vary across the temperature range. For example, a defect in the basic alloy composition will produce a more noticable variation throughout the entire temprature range, whereas defects in post production working like cold rolling will quickly disappear at lower temperatures, owing to annealing. Therefore, without understanding the cause of the variation it is impossible to predict how the so-called defect would differ from a typical response at any given temperature. Clearly, failure during the cold rolling process is irrelevant at 800 C.

In any event, the thermal structural response of steel sections is well understood. Moreover, ASD and LFRD, both take into account manufacturing variations in their methodology. Like I said before. Moreover, steel section manufacture does involve quality control. The variations are small.

Well he's definately wrong about one thing: Muslims actually can bend the laws of physics.

No that is wrong. Ballywood has that ability!

Seeing as how you're a qualified physicist and/or engineer. Oh wait.

So how does a physicist understand structural engineering?

The label of engineer doesn't grant carte blanche either! Many engineers can barely clean themselves ;)

Oh ok thanks.

I imagine that something as tall at the twin towers pancaking would be very heavy and if designed to pancake would pretty much fall at near free-fall speeds then

I remember a high rise hotel in Venezuela pancaking after being shaken in an earthquake in the 1970s. Almost none of the building went out into the street.

Well he's definately wrong about one thing: Muslims actually can bend the laws of physics.
You are wrong there. Only Chuck Norris or Jack Bauer can do that.