Physics Professor's Peer Reviewed Paper on WTC CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS on 9/11

TRUTH wrote:
Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds
of people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's
version of events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed
on Google Video, or downloaded to your computer.


The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:

1) It was NOT peer reviewed.
2) The URL of his paper: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding
are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

Jones is not a qualified building engineer. He has repeatedly founded
elaborate theories on tiny bits of evidence. For example, he also
believes that Jesus Christ visited ancient America:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/j...%20figures.htm

You and Jones both make the mistake of starting from a conclusion and
selecting facts that support it while ignoring those that don't. The next
step you take is to assume, incorrectly, that attacking someone elses
explanation X automatically makes your explanation Y the correct answer.

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:
Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to
hundreds of people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the
government's version of events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar
can be viewed on Google Video, or downloaded to your computer.


The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:

1) It was NOT peer reviewed.
2) The URL of his paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding
are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

Jones is not a qualified building engineer. He has repeatedly founded
elaborate theories on tiny bits of evidence. For example, he also
believes that Jesus Christ visited ancient America:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/j...%20and%20figur
es.htm

You and Jones both make the mistake of starting from a conclusion and
selecting facts that support it while ignoring those that don't. The
next step you take is to assume, incorrectly, that attacking someone
elses explanation X automatically makes your explanation Y the correct
answer.




Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed. Perhaps if you look into it instead of
jumping to wild half baked conclusions (being the government's absurd)
version, you'd see it.

TRUTH wrote:
Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed.

By what journal?

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed.

Actually, a couple of guys looked it over for publication in a
heavily-slanted collection of articles on 9/11. not in any sort of real
peer-reviewed journal with any sort of bearing on the actual subject.

TRUTH wrote:

Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed. Perhaps if you look into it instead of
jumping to wild half baked conclusions (being the government's absurd)
version, you'd see it.

By peers, I assume you mean people as wacky as him?

Matt

Jones does not need to be a building engineer. He's a physicist and is
therefore qualified to determine if the government's version defies
physics. And since his paper, and the 150 people in st911.org, use science,
and not kooky proofless boxcutter nonsense, they can see that the WTC was
taken down by controled demolitions. So can anyone else who looks at the
information I posted.

TRUTH wrote:
Jones does not need to be a building engineer. He's a physicist and is
therefore qualified to determine if the government's version defies
physics.

So? I have a physics degree too.

Why do you listen to Jones and not the people with physics and engineering
degrees who wrote the reports that contradict Jones' theory? If you were
really objective, you'd consider their analysis too. You'd quote from them
equally and contrast the explanations yourself. But my guess is that you
don't have the technical background to do that, so you are using subjective
criteria that leads you to unfounded beliefs.

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:
Jones does not need to be a building engineer. He's a physicist and
is therefore qualified to determine if the government's version
defies physics.

So? I have a physics degree too.

Why do you listen to Jones and not the people with physics and
engineering degrees who wrote the reports that contradict Jones'
theory? If you were really objective, you'd consider their analysis
too. You'd quote from them equally and contrast the explanations
yourself. But my guess is that you don't have the technical background
to do that, so you are using subjective criteria that leads you to
unfounded beliefs.



You're making the assumption that people have been proving Jones wrong.
That is not true. If you know otherwise, please prove it.

I do not have a physics/engineering degree, but do have a technical
background, and definitely have an abundance of common sense.

Look at the info in my other posts. If you have a physics degree, I
challenge you to read Jones' paper and demonstrate that anything that he
has to say to be false.


Are you aware these NIST facts?

FACT: The NIST investigators made the assumption that collapse initiation
would "inevitably" lead to global collapse, despite the fact that it never
happened before in world history.

FACT: The NIST investigators performed little analysis of the structural
behavior of the Towers following collapse initiation

FACT: The NIST investigators altered the data for their computer
simulations

FACT: The NIST investigators refuse to show their computer simulation model
despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers.

TRUTH wrote:
I do not have a physics/engineering degree, but do have a technical
background, and definitely have an abundance of common sense.

You may be able to test Jones' speculations in the comfort of your own
home. No need for any math or computer simulations. You'll need a set of
Dominos or other long skinny rectangular blocks. Construct a mini WTC or
WTC-7 along these lines:

---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| | -- Knock out support column here.
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
------------------ - Ground level

Using a finger, small ball, or other mechanism to knock out a support
Domino about 2/3rds the way up. Observe the collapse. Does the tower tip
over or does it collapse in a manner similar to the WTC collapse? It has
been 40-some years since I built toy buildings out of Dominos (more fun
than playing the game, IMHO) and haven't got any games pieces or blocks
handy, so it will be interesting to see what you or others report.
Clearly no explosives have been planted in the model (using fire crackers
should be left for advanced experiments under adult supervision).

As extra credit, if you can rig something to begin free falling next to
the model when the top of the building starts falling, you can get an
idea how much slower the top falls relative to free fall.

Let me know how the experiment goes.

TRUTH wrote:

I do not have a physics/engineering degree, but do have a technical
background, and definitely have an abundance of common sense.

You have NO common sense.