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

Dan wrote:
Frank F. Matthews wrote:



TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in news:jbqLf.24058$Ug4.15324@dukeread12:


Thomas Borchert wrote:

Truth,


that explain ANY of the clear scientific envidence provided.


It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science,
either, until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly
the purpose of peer review.


Actually real engineers in Jones' own school have debunked it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired






Yeah, where? Point out the specific URL?


They should bother creating a URL just to debunk you?


Especially since other people have presented same showing where the
engineers at BYU very diplomatically called Jones a liar. Truth refuses
to believe it so it didn't happen.

It has been established truth:

1) knows nothing about science or the scientific method - he has said so
2) knows nothing about math - he has said so and proved as much
3) knows nothing about being a pilot - he has proved this
4) knows nothing about metallurgy - he can't accept hot metal can fail
5) knows nothing about demolition - "squib" is a "puff of smoke"
6) changes the questions after he asks them and misuses the responses
7) asks for responses from engineers and pilots then calls them liars
8) thinks name calling is a proper method of argument
9) etc

and yet tells us WE don't understand or have open minds.

I have come to the conclusion he either is that dense or he is just
yanking our collective chains.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In a way. He like you and I are just having fun. He just needs to
sound like a nut while doing it. Given his rabid defense of the prof I
suspect that he is the prof hiding and trying to look like he has
supporters.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 03:53:52 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in news:jbqLf.24058$Ug4.15324@dukeread12:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Truth,

that explain ANY of the clear scientific
envidence provided.


It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science, either,
until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly the purpose
of peer review.

Actually real engineers in Jones' own school have debunked it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired





Yeah, where? Point out the specific URL?

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724

begin excerpt
Not long after this spate of interviews, BYU’s College of Physical and
Mathematical Sciences posted a statement on its Web site stressing Jones’ right
to publish what he wished while distancing itself from Jones’ current research.

That statement has since been removed, but a similar one is still online at the
College of Engineering and Technology’s Web site.

“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,” it reads in part.

“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 structural engineering
faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the
hypotheses of Professor Jones.”

Reached for comment, structural engineering professors Steven Benzley and Rick
Balling both said they supported the statement as written.

Balling said he and Benzley have made contact with Jones on more than one
occasion, engaging him in a dialogue about the more technical aspects of his
research.
/end excerpt


"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and
Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

That's pretty damn clear, even you should get the fact that real engineers in
his own school have debunked it. And before you go off on an irrelevant
tangent, the Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering and Technology is indeed part
of BYU. http://www.et.byu.edu/

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:54:51 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

I don't have the expertise to do such an experiment. Common sense is what
makes it obvious.

Common sense is what tells you the Earth is flat.

Dan wrote in news:wTCLf.26212$Ug4.11880@dukeread12:

Frank F. Matthews wrote:


TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:jbqLf.24058$Ug4.15324@dukeread12:


Thomas Borchert wrote:

Truth,


that explain ANY of the clear scientific envidence provided.


It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science,
either, until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly
the purpose of peer review.


Actually real engineers in Jones' own school have debunked it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired






Yeah, where? Point out the specific URL?

They should bother creating a URL just to debunk you?


Especially since other people have presented same showing where the
engineers at BYU very diplomatically called Jones a liar. Truth refuses
to believe it so it didn't happen.

It has been established truth:

1) knows nothing about science or the scientific method - he has said
so
2) knows nothing about math - he has said so and proved as much
3) knows nothing about being a pilot - he has proved this
4) knows nothing about metallurgy - he can't accept hot metal can fail
5) knows nothing about demolition - "squib" is a "puff of smoke"
6) changes the questions after he asks them and misuses the responses
7) asks for responses from engineers and pilots then calls them liars
8) thinks name calling is a proper method of argument
9) etc

and yet tells us WE don't understand or have open minds.

I have come to the conclusion he either is that dense or he is just
yanking our collective chains.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




I've explained the reasons why the strucural engineering department at
BYU does not (publicly) believe Jones. There are scared for their lives.
Perhaps their afraid of an anthrax letter. (Afterall, anthrax letters
were mailed to two senators who opposed the Patriot Act.)

But, BYU's strucural engineering department's disaagreement with Jones is
not the same as debunking the paper.


(Dan, if you respond to this message, please do so in the other thread.
There's too many posts to keep track of in all these threads. And yes, I
know it's my fault for creating them.)

Dr. George O. Bizzigotti wrote in
:


I was able to find the text of the BYU press release at:
http://oddbits3.blogspot.com/2005/12...controversy.ht
ml

and Wikipedia includes quotes from the Chairman of BYU's Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

I wouldn't exactly say that this amounts to "debunking" Jones
hypothesis. Nevertheless, I would say that Jones is not exactly good
science here. He states his hypothesis, and he cherry-picks facts that
appear to support his hypothesis. That may be an effective debating
tool, but it's not good science. If one is doing science, one is
obligated to look for and present evidence against the hypothesis.

For starters, Jones assumes that a 0.6 second delay from what he
asserts would be the time required for a building to free-fall is too
short to allow for a fire-induced pancake collapse. There is zero
analysis to support this assumption; it may or may not be valid, but
I'd like to see reference to an engineering analysis of such a
collapse that supported his assumption.

Another assumption is that a building collapsing into it's own
footprint is inconsistent with the "Law of increasing entropy when due
to random causes." However, Jones cites as "proof" of this assertion
the collapse of buildings due to earthquakes. Might buildings in
earthquakes tend to collapse asymmetrically because the ground is
shaking underneath them in a non-random fashion?

Jones asserts that air expulsion due to collapsing floors is
"excluded" because the interval between puffs is longer than the time
required for one floor to free-fall to the next. He gives the equation
for acceleration due to gravity, which could be valid only for time to
collapse the first floor; I suspect that the first floor to go
actually took somewhat longer to collapse because it was not in free
fall. However, the equation is inadequate to explain the collapse of
the next floor, because the building above that point is now falling,
and therefore there are forces other than gravity to consider.

Jones suggests that the buildings were collapsed by radio-controlled
detonations using thermite and explosives, but he doesn't appear to
understand that controlled collapse using explosives in every case of
which I'm aware requires that the building be largely gutted, and that
the thermite chemical reaction requires a few seconds to melt metal,
so this alternative explanation has even bigger timing problems than
the "government explanation" he dismissed.

I really don't have the time or the energy to go through every detail
of Jones' paper. As another poster to this thread, who is a registered
professional engineer has explained, one can get a full review once
one's check clears. I suspect that I have done what other scientists
and engineers have done in the absence of payment: noticed multiple
egregious examples of ignoring rather large problems with his
hypothesis and concluded that Jones is more interested in scoring
debating points than he is in science in this instance.

Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
http://www.SecureIX.com ***



Dr Bizzigotti: Thank you for taking the time to provide some analysis of
Professor Jones' paper. Would you consider sending Dr Jones an email
describing your findings? Only when enough scientists come together will
the information and data be properly analysed.


Thank you,
TRUTH (individual member of the 9/11 Truth Movement)




Info on 9/11 Truth Movement:

www.NY911Truth.org (Les Jamieson - NY 911 Truth Coordinator)

www.911Truth.org (Nic Levis - 911 Truth East Coast Director)


Recent Article in The Village Voice:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/060...y,72255,6.html

Untrue, and I can demonstrate that he




Chad Irby wrote in news:cirby-6A2D32.09511624022006
@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence,

...aside from the *hundreds* of eyewitnesses (it flew over a crowded
freeway on the way in),



First of all, many people reported seeing a plane that looked nothing
like a 757. (They reported a much smaller plane.)

Second, if one could say that the FDNY personnel acounts of flashes,
explosions, bombs at the WTC (that they compared to conrolled
demoltions!) are unreliable, then the same could be said for any
eyewitnesses who think they saw a 757 fly near the Pentagon. Fire
department personnel may not be experts in controlled demolitions, but
they sure as hell know more about it than the "average joe" knows about
airplanes.

Third, where exactly did you hear that *hundreds* of eyewitnesses
reported a 757 at the Pentagon? Do you have a URL for this?



the light poles knocked over by the plane on
approach,


easily accomlished by a small drone




the missing commercial flight (it was a regularly scheduled
flight, and never landed anywhere else),


Could have landed at a military base. Or, may God help them, shot down
over the Atlantic



the actual physical debris
(yes, it was there, and yes, it was in the colors used by that
airline),


If you're referring to this
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg

It was easily dropped by someone involved.


Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?



and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per hour...


That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for yourself

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Untrue, and I can demonstrate that he




Chad Irby wrote in news:cirby-6A2D32.09511624022006
@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence,

...aside from the *hundreds* of eyewitnesses (it flew over a crowded
freeway on the way in),



First of all, many people reported seeing a plane that looked nothing
like a 757. (They reported a much smaller plane.)

Second, if one could say that the FDNY personnel acounts of flashes,
explosions, bombs at the WTC (that they compared to conrolled
demoltions!) are unreliable, then the same could be said for any
eyewitnesses who think they saw a 757 fly near the Pentagon. Fire
department personnel may not be experts in controlled demolitions, but
they sure as hell know more about it than the "average joe" knows about
airplanes.

Third, where exactly did you hear that *hundreds* of eyewitnesses
reported a 757 at the Pentagon? Do you have a URL for this?



the light poles knocked over by the plane on
approach,


easily accomlished by a small drone




the missing commercial flight (it was a regularly scheduled
flight, and never landed anywhere else),


Could have landed at a military base. Or, may God help them, shot down
over the Atlantic



the actual physical debris
(yes, it was there, and yes, it was in the colors used by that
airline),


If you're referring to this
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg

It was easily dropped by someone involved.


Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?



and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per hour...


That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for yourself

You provided proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon yourself, and acknowledged
such.

Paul Nixon

TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in news:wTCLf.26212$Ug4.11880@dukeread12:


Frank F. Matthews wrote:


TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in news:jbqLf.24058$Ug4.15324@dukeread12:



Thomas Borchert wrote:


Truth,



that explain ANY of the clear scientific envidence provided.


It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science,
either, until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly
the purpose of peer review.


Actually real engineers in Jones' own school have debunked it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired






Yeah, where? Point out the specific URL?

They should bother creating a URL just to debunk you?


Especially since other people have presented same showing where the
engineers at BYU very diplomatically called Jones a liar. Truth refuses
to believe it so it didn't happen.

It has been established truth:

1) knows nothing about science or the scientific method - he has said

so

2) knows nothing about math - he has said so and proved as much
3) knows nothing about being a pilot - he has proved this
4) knows nothing about metallurgy - he can't accept hot metal can fail
5) knows nothing about demolition - "squib" is a "puff of smoke"
6) changes the questions after he asks them and misuses the responses
7) asks for responses from engineers and pilots then calls them liars
8) thinks name calling is a proper method of argument
9) etc

and yet tells us WE don't understand or have open minds.

I have come to the conclusion he either is that dense or he is just
yanking our collective chains.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired





I've explained the reasons why the strucural engineering department at
BYU does not (publicly) believe Jones. There are scared for their lives.
Perhaps their afraid of an anthrax letter. (Afterall, anthrax letters
were mailed to two senators who opposed the Patriot Act.)

But, BYU's strucural engineering department's disaagreement with Jones is
not the same as debunking the paper.


(Dan, if you respond to this message, please do so in the other thread.
There's too many posts to keep track of in all these threads. And yes, I
know it's my fault for creating them.)


Boy. Now all the experts who disagree with your non expert are simply
afraid for their lives. Please. And you promised to leave us alone and
go away to your new thread.

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

I've explained the reasons why the strucural engineering department at
BYU does not (publicly) believe Jones. There are scared for their lives.
Perhaps their afraid of an anthrax letter. (Afterall, anthrax letters
were mailed to two senators who opposed the Patriot Act.)

....weeks before the Patriot Act was even written, and a month and a half
before it came to a vote...

So the Eeeeeevil Bush/Cheney Conspiracy has a time machine, too?

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

First of all, many people reported seeing a plane that looked nothing
like a 757. (They reported a much smaller plane.)

Funny, I've met quite a few people who were on that highway that day,
and two of them were commercially-rated airline pilots (who are not
likely to screw up a plane ID like that).