It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:41 AM

Professor Jones told the Arctic Beacon in a phone conversation from his BYU office Wednesday, he was disappointed over having to turn down numerous media requests, but felt it was in the best interests of all parties to end the media shower and concentrate again on academics.

He added after discussing the enormous media attention with the heads of BYU, enormous attention coming from all corners of the country, it was jointly decided by all parties it would best for the university and for Jones to limit his speaking engagements to “peer review events only.”

“I want to thank everyone for the attention, but it is best that I limit my appearances at this time,” said Jones in a conversation with the Arctic Beacon Wednesday morning, a parting word which could be his last with the media for quite awhile.

So I wonder when, if ever, he will present his paper at a “peer review event?”

Jones earlier said he first presented his explosive conclusions at Brigham Young University (BYU) on September 22, to 60 people from the BYU and Utah Valley State College faculties, including professors of Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Geology, Mathematics and Psychology.

After presently scientific arguments in favor of the controlled demolition theory, Jones said everyone in attendance from all backgrounds, conservative and liberal, were in total agreement further investigation was needed.

What a load of B.S. All 60 people were in total agreement with him? I want to see proof of that claim, after all that would be the “peer review” he is looking for, wouldn’t it?

The best comment I have read on Jones came from a letter o the editor after the article ran in the desert news:

BYU professor Steven Jones may well be what passes for an expert in his oddly paired specialties of "metal-assisted (cold) fusion" and ancient American horses, but I see nothing in his BYU faculty listing that would incline me to look to him for expert analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attacks. In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, I see signs of a kooky dilettante diminishing the credibility of my BYU degree.
Thomas Eastmond
Costa Mesa, Calif.

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:51 PM
To this day, there has been no independent official inquiry into the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Kean Commission, with which most Americans are familiar, was based on the Bush version of events. It was charged with probing the breakdown of intelligence prior to the attacks and making suggestions for improving communications among the competing agencies involved. The Commission, formed after more than a year of opposition by the Bush administration, did not…repeat...did NOT…investigate or report about the causes of the attacks.

Far more important – to this day there has not been a single piece of evidence presented to the public that corroborates the official government version of the most devastating attack in our history. Think about that. For more than four years, scores of credible experts have challenged the explanations offered by the Bush administration, and yet not a shred of evidence has been offered by the US government to support the official version of events they claim took place on that day.

Even more absurd is that fact that not a single official inquiry has attempted to respond to, discredit, or refute the questions that have been raised. On the contrary, both the American government and the complicit media have dealt with the every single challenge to the 9/11 explainations in two ways. They either totally ignore them or dismiss them out of hand as ridiculous conspiracy theories. Most of the well-researched and revealing findings by independent investigators are unknown to the vast majority of Americans.

I believe that I, and every single person involved in the independent 9/11 research community must ask one question of the people who still believe the official 9/11 story. We must demand that those who accept the Bush explanation of the events of that terrible day answer a single question:


You claim that the President and his handlers have told you the truth. You refuse to consider the information we show you that punches huge holes into the official version. You refuse to check out the information for yourself. You tell us what we have uncovered is false. Okay, we’ll buy that, we’ll concede that you’re right...and that all of us are wrong.

In fact, we’ll take it all back and admit the errors of our ways IF you do something first. Show us YOUR proof. Tell us why we should believe the story you have swallowed, and show us what you have to back up your claims! You’d better have something more than a borrowed smirk when you tell us we’re way out in left field. You better be ready to answer just one simple question:

Where is YOUR proof, true believers?

The facts about 9/11 that have been uncovered are dismissed by people who apply unbelievably skewed logic to their opposing argument. They believe a story when the only proof they use to validate the story is the story itself. That’s it! All they know is what they have been told. News reports, video, witnesses, whistle blowers, their own eyes and even common sense contradict their beliefs. Still, these people continue to accuse the researchers of being either crazy or traitorous. What kind of convoluted reasoning has infected such a large segment of the nation?

This is a battle for truth. It’s not a debate over conflicting philosophies. It is a battle between those who are searching for facts and those who choose to deny that a search is necessary. How long do those in blinders have to be engulfed in flames before they believe an independent researcher who warns them of the increasing heat?

In the late 1990’s members of the Project for a New American Century wrote a treatise in which they foresaw a strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination that would require a huge increase in defense spending. “The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” The members of this group, known as PNAC, were appointed to many high level positions in the new Bush administration. Only months after they came to power, the United States experienced a new Pearl Harbor. That has never been publicized or explained as anything other than mere coincidence.

I have not seen even a single computer model explanation as to how or why Building 7 collapsed in the exact same manner as the two Towers that were hit by airplanes. As a matter of fact Building 7, which sustained no impact at all, was not mentioned in the Kean Commission report at all. The FEMA report of the collapse remains inconclusive, unable to offer a reasonable explanation for the collapse. Larry Silverstein, owner of the complex publicly claimed he gave permission for Tower 7 to be ‘pulled,’ a fire department term for demolished. Demolition of such a building would have required weeks, if not months of preparation. No explanation has ever been given for this baffling anomaly.

The bottom line is simple: I have not seen anything at all that makes me believe the official story of 9/11, which, when considered on its own merits, is so implausible as to be considered a bad joke. So, once again, I ask the people who refuse to explore the findings of the independent research community, - the only real investigation into the events of September 11th 2001 - where is YOUR proof?

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:12 PM
Your overriding problem, Howard, is that the official story has no proof, and covering up for little problems in the theory here and there don't make the theory any more of proof. And you work, just as NIST does, from the assumption that the official story is proven, which is, of course, wrong.

If you'd like to correct me in my saying that the official story has no proof, then there are three threads I can think of off the top of my head asking for proof of the official story ("Where Is Your Proof About 9-11", the Progressive Collapse Challenge thread, and some earlier thread with the general topic of proving the official story) that I'm sure you'd love to post on. None of those threads have had their purposes fulfilled as of yet, so your work is cut out for you.

While you can explain or cover for small issues here and there as to why this didn't work, or that did or didn't happen, which may or may not be scientifically sound in the first place, there is absolutely no credible evidence for anything NIST has said, other than NIST has said it. NIST offers nothing reproducible and thereby scientific in the least, and it seems that the only real meat behind the B.S. NIST has put forward is the number of unthinking yes-men that have come forward to nod their heads while pretending to read over it deep in thought. Is science based on how many people agree? Or on reproducibility? Of course you'll contend a popularity contest, because no one has been able to reproduce the collapses in any way, model or simulation or real life, based on the way NIST describes. Unfortunately, this is a troubled view of science is there has ever been one, because we all know that masses of people will believe very stupid things just because an authority has told them to, and that's why you should offer up some evidence. And I'm not just talking about a WTC-like building. I'm talking for any other buildings. No other "progressive collapses" despite the number of skyscraper fires and etc. You can offer your opinion as to why this is so, but neither is that scientific in the least.

In short, there is no meat behind anything you say, Howard. It's easy to make up explanations for problems in the official line, as any member of the party with an imagination can do that, but quite another thing to prove them. And before you post a cleverly-designed post with the effect of dismissing this one with a few
's or some other typical method, maybe you can prepare some critique on how the disappearance of the angular momentum fits into the official story, and we can discuss that, because that is a very simply and easily observable law of physics that was plainly violated on 9/11. Goes back to Newton's First Law of Motion, in fact, so it should be easy, eh? And no popularity contest "science"?

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:43 PM
So Building 7 collapsed due to fires, and damage from the falling twin towers? This is confusing to me, because tower Six, which was between the Twin Towers and Building 7 took sever damage, and yet somehow managed to not collapse. I also find it interesting that the "mainstream" media barely even mentioned Tower 7's collapse. I didn't even know about it until I started reading some conspiracy theory webpages, who felt the official explanation was laughable.

FEMA's own report on the collapse of WTC Tower 7 states the following:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.

They themselves admit the conclusion seems unlikely.

Here are some more articles that in my mind, cast some serious doubt on the official explanation of raging infernos as the cause of collapse.
People seen waving out of the impact holes left by the planes.
Video and Photographic evidence of bombs being responsible for the collapse of tower 7.
Interview of the WTC Construction manager, talking about how the buildings were designed to withstand multiple hits from airliners.
More info on the collapse of WTC Tower 7.

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:21 PM
In response to an inquiry, I receieved the following e-mail from the chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering:

No one in the department officially collaborated with Jones on his paper, although several are very familiar with it, have talked with him about it, and have mentioned to him other articles about this topic which they are aware of.

I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims.

Dr. Miller

So much for his "peer review."

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:07 PM
Do you even pay attention when people speak to you howard or do you just go through life talking and talking but never listening to others?

I know it feels good to just talk and talk... but sometimes listening and paying attention when others speak to you could be a rich and rewarding experience. I tell you what, try it for a day and let us know how it goes... i bet its not as bad as it seems...

Or do you ignore us on purpose? I suppose attacking the source (with babble btw) might feel good, but it doesnt get you out of the jam of paying attention and stepping up to the plate that you yourself have created...

I bet the reason you ignore our questions to you are simple: You can't.

Im starting to wonder if you even read what anybody else has posted or you just keep blindly posting hoping that it eventually hits the topic currently at hand.

Some wonderful posts going on here btw. I appreciate them greatly.

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:10 PM
If you have something to say, then spit it out.

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Garden Spider
This is confusing to me, because tower Six, which was between the Twin Towers and Building 7 took sever damage, and yet somehow managed to not collapse.

WTC 6, AKA the Customs house

What's that big hole, then?

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:40 PM
That looks more like a bomb blast now that you point it out. Thank You howard. If you postulate that it is penetration damage by something falling from above, i'd LOVE to hear how you think THAT was done.

Why is that dome not damaged?

[edit on 17-11-2005 by Master Wu]

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:53 PM
Hmm, I see pieces of WTC 1 resting on the side of WTC 6.

Don't you?

The dome wasn't hit by debris.

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:49 AM
I just want one proof, ONE!!! What were the secuencial explosions?, and dont kid with me, I FELT the damn explosions!!, How does that happened that quickly?, how nobody saw it coming?, why three buildings the same day in so different circumstances? why ALL the physical evidence that they need to answer any of the questions is out of the country, does not exists or is classified? This makes me sick, how can people be so numb?

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 06:45 AM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
WCIP, other than the thin, lightweight concrete of the floor slabs, there was no masonry (i.e. structural concrete) used in the construction of the WTC towers. The core area of the towers was nothing like the core area of the Windsor building.

As I stated above, the Windsor tower was basically constructed with reinforced concrete columns and beams with the exception of the tenant areas of the top floors whicher were supported by a steel frame.

Why do you insist that the situations are comparable? They are not. The two buildings had totally different designs and were built with totally different materials. You simply can not compare the two.

Why do you insist that they are incomparable? Knowing what you do about building construction and the hypothesized collapse mode of the towers, your almost pathological resistance to any comparison whatsoever between the two structures comes across as merely tactics.

You posit that the performances of the two structures in a fire are incomparable since there were different materials used in their construction. What you deliberately avoid mentioning is the fact that what really matters is the assemblies used in the construction, AND you also avoid addressing the issue of the mechanical performance of the buildings in collapse, regardless of the triggering cause - fire, damage, Godzilla attack, whatever. That's where the comparison is infinitely relevant.

The WTC towers were constructed with a majority load-bearing steel central core consisting of 47 vertical box and 'I' columns, the floors were constructed of steel trusses running North-South and East-West covered by a metal corrugated deck, onto which was then poured concrete. The trusses were then connected to the outer perimeter of columns designed to bear lateral load and a portion of the vertical load.

Now the Windsor Building does differ slightly in its construction materials, but not where it matters. The Windsor Building was also constructed with a load-bearing central core, trussed floor design, with the trusses spanning onto a shell of outer composite beams, just like the WTC towers, except that the Windsor Building truss system consisted of reinforced concrete (concrete slabs reinforced with thin steel rebar inside, which is weaker than steel in tension and shear), whereas the WTC towers had thick, steel trusses covered with a layer of concrete. Also the Windsor Building outer columns were widely spaced apart. Compare this to the WTC towers with outer columns spaced very close together.

The assemblies and construction of the two buildings were both tube within tube designs with load transferred between the two via trussed floors. And this is precisely why the comparison between the two is infinitely relevant. The government's theory of the WTC collapses hinges on the "truss theory" whereby the trusses' connection to the core and outer perimeter columns was weakened by extremely high temperatures and excessive load, eventually snapping and pancaking down 95 floors at virtually free fall speed. ONLY the sections of the Windsor Tower exposed to extremely intense fires and temperatures for extended periods of time collapsed, and those sections collapsed in portions and stages. When the sections destroyed by fire fell on the sections below, the building did not go into global pancake collapse and turn to dust, despite being the exact same floors spanning from a core onto outer columns design as the WTC towers, and despite being weaker in construction and assembly connection strength.

Gravity-driven collapse of a building takes place in accordance with the principle of minimum resistance and breaks the building into large chunks. Even IF the bending steel and initial collapse of the upper sections from fatigue were true, which it isn't, the collapse would not progress beyond a number of floors before the kinetic energy was spent, some of the top section would break apart into LARGE chunks and fall over the side, and the beams and concrete of the floors underneath which were UNDAMAGED BY FIRE (OR AIRPLANE COLLISION) would hold, as they did with the Windsor Tower.

The Windsor Tower shows us that the pancaking truss theory once again fails to be reproduced in this collapse of a truss-span building. Howard, if you are going to insist that the buildings behaved differently in collapse because of difference in materials, then you will be forced to abandon the hypothesis that weak truss connections contributed to the global collapse of the WTC towers, and you will have to show that steel-framed structures are weaker than steel-reinforced concrete in resisting crushing.

"But...but..but they used different materials", I hear you cry again, completely missing the point.

Well here's some steel-framed buildings for you that survived massive fires by which the WTC fires pale in comparison. They, unlike your "it's got concrete so it's different" building, were 100% steel and they did not collapse at all:

In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. See


In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse. See


In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. See


In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. Taiwan inferno



So I guess you'll just have to fall back on your "yeah, but they didn't have planes crash into them" defense.

It is not possible to compare the performance of these to structures in a fire. This is truly an apples to oranges situation.

It's an oranges and tangerines situation, and you know it.

[edit on 2005-11-18 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:13 AM
Why has no one mentioned the weight of the multi-ton jetliners as a it because you believe they were vaporized upon impact?

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:21 AM

Originally posted by HotTamale
Why has no one mentioned the weight of the multi-ton jetliners as a it because you believe they were vaporized upon impact?

Because many would rather have you believe that they caused minor damage, and factoring in said jetliners makes the demolition argument weaker than when they can ignore it.

BTW where is the traces of explosives?

There is still debris that can be tested in scrap yards in Jersey. The wreckage of the towers have been analysed and no explosive residue has ever been found. I know many would rather believe in the giant conspiracy that covered every agency involved and every laboratory used, but here's your chance to do your own research.

Why have none of the Pro demo "scientists" and websites tested the debris for traces of explosives.

They have been tested by others and no explosives were ever detected.

Also, I'm still waiting for a plausible window of opportunity to wire up those buildings with over 250 tons of explosives each.

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 12:25 PM
Thank you HowardRoak, for proving my point with the photos. Building Six took much more damage from the falling debris from the Twin Towers than Building 7 did, and yet, it didn't collapse. Parts where knocked in, but yet the shell of the building managed to stay standing?

Why then, did Building 7, which took less damage from falling debris, basically implode as we've all seen in the numberous videos.

The official explanation makes no sense. If building 7 collapsed from fire and debris, then surely building 6 should have.

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Garden Spider
The official explanation makes no sense. If building 7 collapsed from fire and debris, then surely building 6 should have.

If they were identical construction, maybe. THe problem is, they were totally different structural designs.

Are you qualified to compare the two designs and categorically state that the performance of each should have been the same?

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:10 PM
Actually, LEftBehind, the reason more scientists who believe explosives were used is because the steel was whisked away and recycled.

Also, read this, which catalogues the destruction of the rest of the evidence.

So your statement that anyone can go to the garbage dump in NJ is actually untrue.

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:19 PM
HowardRoark, I am no more qualified to categorically state that they are designed the same and should have reacted identically than you are to categorically state that they were designed differently, and as such should have reacted differently to the falling debris. So congratulations, you're using circular reasoning to disprove my point (I've noticed circular reasoning seems to be a favorite methodolgy of yours).

So let's not make asanine comments about anyones qualifications to make conjectures about what happened on 9/11. You are obviously no more of a structural expert than anyone else posting on this website, so I think it is a waste of time to fall back to that arguement.

Editted for spelling. Sorry about that.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by Garden Spider]

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Garden Spider
HowardRoark, I am no more qualified to categorically state that they are designed the same and should have reacted identically than you are to categorically state that they were designed differently, and as such should have reacted differently to the falling debris. So congratulations, you're using circular reasoning to disprove my point (I've noticed circular reasoning seems to be a favorite methodolgy of yours).

The fact is, they were different buildings. The designs were different. Hell the had different numbers of floors.

WTC 7 had an unusual transfer truss arrangement due to the substation under it.

I think that is enough to state that the performance of each building under the circumstances is not in any way comparable.

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:50 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Are you qualified to compare the two designs...?

Are you?

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in