It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
Costa Mesa, Calif.
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.
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.
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 www.iklimnet.com...
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 www.sgh.com...
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 www.cbsnews.com...
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
It is not possible to compare the performance of these to structures in a fire. This is truly an apples to oranges situation.
Originally posted by HotTamale
Why has no one mentioned the weight of the multi-ton jetliners as a factor...is it because you believe they were vaporized upon impact?
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.
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).