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.


POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers

page: 25
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 07:32 AM
Ahh, a Brit!

Sorry for the misunderstanding then.
I just answered LeftBehind in the other thread with the same name, and then saw your post here, so, here is part of your answer too :

Originally posted by LaBTop
Did you ever watch how a blacksmith heats and melts iron, steel, or copper?
He makes a fire from cokes or coal bricks, blows in air or sometimes pure oxigen, until the coals are glowing red hot, and then sticks f.ex. a 1 meter steel rebar in the centre of the fire. After 20 minutes he takes the rebar, its end now glowing red to white hot, and deforming - which is the first stage of melting - , out of the coals, and starts hammering the hot end to form it into the shape he needs.

Guess what, he holds the other end with his bare hand, or sometimes with leather gloves on his hands.
Leather is basicly animal skin. Thus, same SKIN as on his hands, only a titbit thicker!
Do not think he would do that if the rebar end he holds in his (gloved) hand would be f.ex. 300° C. Let ever, have the same temperature as the other end.

It seems you didn't pay attention to your physics teacher, or never had physics teached to you, very basic physics by the way.
Please look up iron or copper or aluminum " heat conductivity , expansion coefficient ", and a lot more what is to learn about metals, heat and temperature.
I advise WikiPedia to you, that's simple enough and will give you the full picture how metals conduct heat.

Bottom line: not a miracle at all to pull a one-end molten piece of steel out of a debris pile, even with your bare hands.

But you seem to be blind to the real MIRACLE :
How the hell (pun intended) could that steel bar still be dripping molten steel at one end after days or even weeks?

Since we both agree I hope, that there was no open coal mine under all THREE collapsed towers with pressured-air pipes to feed oxigen to the fires, tell me, with your obvious flawed notion of basic physics laws, what was the SOURCE of that AMOUNT of HEAT, and the maximum temperatures logically existing, to MELT the ends of HIGH TENSILE STEEL beams.

A source which funded HEAT to the bottom of the debris piles, from 11 September untill 19 December 2001..........more than THREE months, FOURTEEN WEEKS !

And DAMNIT, when will you ever accept the logic conclusion, that if you think office furniture and carpets and curtains and desks and cupboards and doors were that source, that you are in serious need of psychlogical councilling?

THOSE THINGS WERE NOT PRESENT IN THE BASEMENTS, and ended up after the collapse, following the same old laws of basic physics, on top of the crushed in first 8 floors above the basements, and the basements floors themselfs.
They did not magically changed placement with those first floors.

And guess what, those first 8 floors consisted of a huge nearly empty entrance hall, the LOBBY, then the Concourse, also nearly empty, and then the 8th and 9th floor was a MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT floor, strongly reinforced with much stronger cross beams and REINFORCED CONCRETE FLOORS.

I know already the next thing you come up with, the famous DIESEL tanks.
Well I have again news for you, the tanks were crushed, and the diesel sipped and spread out within a day into the ground.
And did you see fat black soothed smoke coming from the debris piles?
For 14 WEEKS?
The sign of an oxigen deprived carbon fuel fire?

I DIDN'T, and neither did YOU.

The NYFD pumped over those 14 weeks an amount of water equal to a big LAKE, and STILL THE FIRES KEPT BURNING.

There are only a few physical things which can do that, and one of them is any kind of THERMITE mixture, in abundened AMOUNTS.
And the other ones are pure Sodium or Potassium metals, or, even more chilling to your nerves, running wild, pure NUCLEAR reactions.

If thermite was used, it has been used in a, neglecting public opinion , enormous OVERDOSE.

But I don't believe that.
Thermite was probably used, to melt the basement core collumns, but SOMETHING ELSE was used to PULVERIZE nearly all concrete and other building materials, except steel parts.
And that -something- was the extra source of near ENDLESS HEAT which kept underground fires burning for FOURTEEN WEEKS in 3 former buildings basements!
And then we arrive at only a very few possibilities, and those are all to find within the only other left possibility, the NUCLEAR FACTOR.

Chilling to your bones, ain't it so....

Because you are scared to death, to have to admit somewhere in the near future, that your Administration, or another foreign Administration, or together, planted nuclear devices in those 3 towers.
For the "fun" of playing "cowboys and indians" in far away oil rich countries.
And safeguard the existence of their most important ally, Israel.
Israel, laying on the doorsteps of ALL important oil producing nations in the Middle East.
If it wasn't for the pure strategical position of Israel, it would have NEVER been created in the first place. And it was created with the help of the prime bankers and the oil robber barons, who saw the future implications of such a western nation buffer inside the Middle East.

When will you people stop your IGNORANCE of a huge PILE of PHYSICS-FACTS, and start wondering ?

I hope you understand that this answer was not for you, but it holds most of what I have to say to you, too, however, there are valiable questions you proposed, which I will answer in a few hours, have to go now, sorry, I'll be back to address those too.

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 11:31 AM
Joe Vialls did an investigation on the bombing in Bali and came to the conclusion that a micro-nuke must have been used from the sheer improbability of the use of any other types of explosives with so deadly a blast.

From his article:

Anyone doubting the nuclear identity of this weapon should take a look at the biggest car bombs detonated in Northern Ireland during the thirty years of trouble, which ranged in size up to 1,000 pounds of conventional explosive. None of them left craters in the road, because simple physics dictate that shock waves always takes the line of least resistance – largely outwards and upwards to atmosphere. Nor am I aware of any 1,000 pound IRA car bomb trashing 27 buildings and 100 vehicles.

An equally valid example would be the Israeli destruction of Arafat’s compound in Ramallah. Overall, Israel took more than a week to trash significantly fewer than 47 buildings, despite the fact they were brazenly attacking every day with multiple 120-mm tank guns and Hellfire missiles.

It is factual information like this that helps us to analyze the available evidence at the crime scene, in order to determine which weapon or weapons were used, and hopefully by whom. At the very minimum the damage caused in the Kuta Beach area would require an 8,000 pound HE blast-bomb of the sort used on Hamburg during the Second World War. Problem! How on earth do you squeeze 8,000 pounds of very bulky low-specific-gravity HE into a twelve-inch diameter sewerage pipe, located nearly five feet underground?

Obviously what you need is a specialized weapon significantly less than twelve inches in diameter, but with a blast capability significantly in excess of 8,000 pounds of conventional explosive. Believe me people, there is only one weapon for the job, which explains why you will probably never see the damning crater picture at the top of this page anywhere else.

And if you would expect micro-nuke detonations to cause massive mushroom clouds and city-wide devastation and all the other jazz you get from their big brothers, you may be surprised.

[edit on 4-12-2005 by bsbray11]

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 01:28 PM
He also got video of one going off outside the embassy, its somewhere in one of his articles.

edit: here it is

[edit on 4-12-2005 by AdamJ]

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 04:29 PM
Thanks for that, Adam.

It's something to think about, especially when dust usually settles closer to the ground because of its density, such as in this implosion,

and the smoke coming from WTC1 prior to the collapse looked rather sooty, as can be expected from poor hydrocarbon combustion.


posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 05:42 PM
Oh wow, way to dig the grave! Any nuke no matter how small, will leave radioactive traces that will be harmful and they will also emit a blinding light and X-rays. All poloroid films in that area will be exposed to the x-ray and will never work again. All electronic devices will be scrambled and or damaged in that area due to the EM blast. Concrete dust is white/gray so is the smoke of burning paper and there was ALOT of paper.

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 06:30 PM
Start digging instead of your grave, for all you can find online, about 4th and 5th generation nuclear explosive devices. I did already the footwork for you, you just have to find it here. And these things don't have an obvious gamma ray footprint, just a generous amount of alpha radiation, gone within a few days to a fourtnight, and a bit of beta radiation, gone within hours.

Guess what, what was found on and after 9/11, but was STRONGLY surpressed by the US government?

And more news, just read the NIST 1-8 report, and its addendums, and search for radio communications. You'll be surprised, that was a genuine EMP blast, but not as grave as you suspect, you supposes a much stronger nuclear explosion.

And your remark about the ultraviolet radiation is viable, but not in a closed environment, and you know that just as well as me.

There is by the way some more nuclear footprints to find, and guess what who found them: your own USGS, but they were stopped by the White House itself in their footsteps, the moment they asked for more access to especially Ground Zero itself, where they were not allowed in, to do their dust sampling.
And more sophisticated equipment, they were INTENTIONALLY send to sample dust, with OUTDATED EQUIPMENT, any professional can see that.
And I gave already a link to their pdf file, where you can find a few VERY suspicious trace elements in MUCH too high amounts, all over Manhattan.
Look first for Tritium...and then you will find a few more, all far above the mean New York soil values found a few years before by USGS .

Your guys, together with the Israeli scientists, and Pakistani, have had 45 YEARS time to develop much more sophisticated nuclear weapons then you and I were teached about, in the underground facilities in DIMONA, Israel, and guess who were the main financial contributers to that site...
And btw, that site was the main driving force for the USA, to stand UNCONDITIONALLY behind Israel, all these years.

Why do you think Vanunnu HAD to be abducted from London, and locked up for 20 years, and still isn't allowed to leave Israel, has house arrest, and may not talk to journalists?
I know, you don't have a clue, so to see.
Wake up man, before it is too late.
They have used them since Oklahoma City. Many times already.

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by XL5
Any nuke no matter how small, will leave radioactive traces that will be harmful and they will also emit a blinding light and X-rays. All poloroid films in that area will be exposed to the x-ray and will never work again. All electronic devices will be scrambled and or damaged in that area due to the EM blast. Concrete dust is white/gray so is the smoke of burning paper and there was ALOT of paper.

If the nukes were as dirty as those dropped on Japan, then yes, because those nukes emitted the immense amount of radiation they did because they used Uranium 238 reflectors rather than Plutonium 239, which only emits alpha radiation, and very little of it underwent fission. Alpha radiation cannot be detected by your average Geiger counter, and can't travel nearly as far as the other types of radiation that are not emitted from plutonium.

The nukes dropped on Japan are the only nukes that have been studied, and they were extremely dirty. In the case of "Little Boy," only about 1% of its critical mass underwent fission, and so guess where the rest went? Pretty much everywhere. It was what caused the enormous amounts of radiation. If that 1% was refined to a much higher percentage, you would subsequently have much less radiation flying about, especially if plutonium was used.

Wikipedia offers more information on the amount of the critical mass that underwent fission:

The Mk I "Little Boy" was 10 feet (3 m) in length, 28 inches (71 cm) wide and weighed 8,900 lb (4000 kg). The design used the gun method to explosively force a sub-critical mass of uranium-235 and three U-235 target rings together into a super-critical mass, initiating a nuclear chain reaction. It contained 60 kg U-235, of which 0.7 kg underwent fission. The uranium was enriched at the massive plants in Oak Ridge, Tennessee during the Manhattan Project.

The article goes on to explain that plutonium was going to be used in the bombs dropped on Japan, and plutonium had already been tested. But then, for some reason beyond me, and the article, too, apparently, the decision was made to switch to uranium with no testing whatsoever. And thus, the bombs dropped on Japan caused much more widespread damage and spread more lethal radiation than they would have, and so studies of nuclear explosions (besides those carried out by the governments that do actual testing) are all based on these dirty explosions.

Who's to say what a cleaner bomb would or would not do? In all likelihood, you would get nowhere near the same result in terms of radiation, etc., as the uranium bombs dropped on Japan with so little mass undergoing fission. If the good majority of mass underwent fission, and especially plutonium, you'd have a hard time trying to link such an explosion to the only publicly acknowledged detonations of nukes: those used on Japan. Apples and oranges in a way, or, more precisely, healthy apples and grotesquely deformed, diseased apples.

Edited to make it clearer as to whom I was addressing, since LaBTop and I have cross-posted.

[edit on 4-12-2005 by bsbray11]


posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 08:00 PM
Forgetting about radioactivity, there is still X-rays and a big bright light. The x-rays and light will happen in even the best nukes, not to mention as it explodes it will expand the building and let the light out of the cracks made. As the building explodes/expands it will blow out all the windows on many floors, THEN let it crash down. Smoke detectors emit alpha rays and there may have been alot of smoke detectors in those buildings.

But why use nukes, thermite, thor's hammer and the hand of god when primer cord and maybe some C4 would have worked.

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 09:17 PM
I was thinking along lines of C4, but now I don't know if it would really have enough power to bring down those buildings as we saw them. It's not that much stronger than plain ol' TNT, and the WTC Towers had some massive perimeter columns to be knocked out as forcefully as they were. That'd have to be a lot of C4. Maybe it was used; maybe it wasn't. But if micro-nukes would've been that much easier, seeing as how they've apparently already been used a few times in other parts of the world, I wouldn't be surprised if they were behind the blasts knocking out the perimeter columns.

In terms of flashes, there were a lot of witness testimonies reporting flashes on both the lower and upper floors just prior to collapse. I couldn't find some of the ones that stick out in my mind, like witnesses talking about seeing these searing flashes of light between columns, but I did find less descriptive, general testimony to flashes. Anybody know of more detailed testimony?

Karin Deshore:

Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

Stephen Gregory:

When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

These flashes would've been seen from between columns. I'm not sure I would believe that videos of collapse taken from a distance, like the major media vids, even when hit by certain amounts of x-rays, would become completely useless. If there's some source of information that I can find relevant to x-ray exposure, especially in regards to amounts and/or distances, that would be helpful, though I doubt this kind of information is readily available.

X-rays are also a form of radiation. I'm going to assume that plutonium nuclear reactions emit this kind of radiation in decent amounts (around the range of gamma rays, right?), but because I'm not that familiar with the topic, I'd appreciate any information in those regards. Do you know how if x-rays are emitted in great amounts with cleaner nukes, LaBTop?

I also found this interesting enough to post, though it's not totally relevant to flashes.

Brian Dixon, Battalion Chief of the FDNY:

I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That's what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out. The realization hit that it's going to fall down, the top's coming off. I was still thinking -- there was never a thought that this whole thing is coming down. I thought that that blew out and stuff is starting to fly down. The top is going to topple off there.

But the tops didn't just fall off, eh?

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 09:36 PM

Originally posted by XL5
But why use nukes, thermite, thor's hammer and the hand of god when primer cord and maybe some C4 would have worked.

High explosives detonated near the base of columns connected to the bedrock could have the annoyingly difficult to explain side-effect of creating obvious seismic signals. The use of thermite, and perhaps the addition of smaller displacement charges to knock the columns aside neatly gets around this...inconvenience.

But I think LaBTop has something to say about those seismic readings too.

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:01 PM
I think this is a really interesting close up.
You can see what looks like the metal just melt away. Im not sure what the means but it suggests to my mind that there were no explosives and it just gave way.
But then the way the air shoots out after in jets makes me think the opposite that there are explosions going off.
Anyway i think its interesting.

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:56 PM
I've just looked at that clip for a bit and I think what you called melting is actually the cap tilting outwards. That looks like the South Tower, which tilted quite a bit. After the 2.5 second tilt or so of the cap outwards, the more explosive events begin, and the fulcrum for the tilting is effectively destroyed.

What you're seeing in that video clip is the destruction of the fulcrum of that tilt. That video shows exactly why WTC2's cap did not continue falling outwardly: something blew it up at the fulcrum. And you can even see the actual destruction from the blast very plainly.

Thanks for that link, btw.

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:39 PM
I found the actual press release from BYU

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:20 AM
No surprises there, Howard. We knew that was coming, as did you, and as did Prof Jones. And we all know why.

Do you perchance have a link to where they have refuted all of points in Jones' paper, or is a press release saving their own funding all they could come up with? I honestly want to see their explanation for the molten metal, their energetic examination of the collapses, and their explanation for the implosion of WTC7. When you have time, cheers.

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:55 AM

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I watched those towers collapse in real time and many times since. It is evident to me that the collapses began in the area of the impact of the planes. The fall was not exactly symetrical, even though there is plenty of testimony that buildings such as these are designed to collapse downward instead of topple which would cause much more damage. When the first tower began to collapse, the collapse started, as I said, from where the planes impacted and you can see that the top floors of the first tower tilted considerably at first. Also, this was not a pancake collapse starting at the top with just one floor, it was very many floors falling simultaneously on the floors below.

As for the smaller buildings, I don't know. I didn't see them fall, but I'm not buying that they were purposely demolished either. This guy has as much credibility as the goofy weatherman.

Unbelievable, Grady and I completely agree on something. Someone take a picture, quick.

This really does feel like the opposite of the first night of Desert Storm.

There was CNN's coverage, a couple of still pictures with some play-by-play in the background, but everyone "remembers" watching the war kick-off "live" on CNN.

Whereas we all did actually see September 11 live but everyone seems to have forgotten what they saw.

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:09 AM

Originally posted by bsbray11

Umm, all explosions create a mushroom cloud. Especially if they happen in nice open air, that's thermal dynamics (or something!) at work.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the figure I've always heard quoted is that one cubic centimetre of C4 plastique has a blast-effect across a radius of up to 30m, that is it will throw debris, such as small stones, grit etc 30 metres from the blast point. Given that kind of effect, how much damage is a truck (and not a pick up truck, but a real truck) loaded with a bomb built by a couple of engineers going to do? Especially if they take up the next part of the challenge, which is that enclosing an explosion makes it much more dangerous.

Oklahoma, as far as I'm aware, was just ANFO and look at the damage that did. A very crude bomb indeed. Anybody in downtown Oklahoma city would have been treated to a mushroom cloud that morning.

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:48 AM
links which are served all through this thread :

First read this page : ,
then you find underneath the Davy Crocket mini nuclear explosive device picture, the one on the tripod, this link :

The third chapter is devoted to the military applications of inertial confinement fusion (ICF) and other pulsed-power technologies.

The fourth chapter is devoted to fourth generation nuclear weapons. These new fission or fusion explosives could have yields in the range of 1 to 100 ton equivalents of TNT, i.e., in the gap which today separates conventional weapons from nuclear weapons. These relatively low-yield nuclear explosives would not qualify as weapons of mass destruction. Seven physical processes which could be used to make such low-yield nuclear weapons, or to make compact non-fission triggers for large scale thermonuclear explosions, are investigated in detail: subcritical fission-burn, magnetic compression, superheavy elements, antimatter, nuclear isomers, metallic hydrogen and superlasers (i.e., ultrapowerful lasers with intensities higher than 1019 W/cm2).

The conclusion stresses that considerable research is underway in all five nuclear-weapon States (as well as in several other major industrialized States such as Germany and Japan) on ICF (LT: that's PULSED POWER micro-bombs) and on many physical processes that provide the scientific basis necessary to develop fourth generation nuclear weapons. Substantial progress has been made in the past few years on all these processes, and the construction of large ICF microexplosion facilities in both nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon States is giving the arms race a fresh boost. The world runs the risk that certain countries will equip themselves directly with fourth generation nuclear weapons, bypassing the acquisition of previous generations of nuclear weapons.

In this context, the invention of the superlaser, which enabled a factor of one million increase in the instantaneous power of tabletop lasers, is possibly the most significant advance in military technology of the past ten years. This increase is of the same magnitude as the factor of one million difference in energy density between chemical and nuclear energy.

And do read the rest of that thread.
Suddenly the possibility of the use of micro nukes is not such an outlandish theory anymore, isn't it ?

Not ONE government on earth is telling its own citizens if they are working on these weapons from hell.
They know that they could pack their sacks, if this kind of research is made public, resulting in a massive "peer review" from the whole scientific community in all these countries.

They are much further than you all will and want to believe.
And they are fighting their secret intel-wars with these mini and micro devices, for a considerable time already.

PS: what ANFO bomb ?

quote: Then on March 20, 1996,Strategic Investment Newsletter reported that a Pentagon study had been leaked which backed up General Partin's analysis:

A classified report prepared by two independent Pentagon experts has concluded that the destruction of the federal building in Oklahoma City last April was caused by five separate bombs. The two experts reached the same conclusion for the same technical reasons. Sources close to the Pentagon study say Timothy McVeigh did play a role in the bombing but peripherally, as a "useful idiot." The multiple bombings have a Middle Eastern "signature," pointing to either Iraqi or Syrian involvement. [ref.60]"A classified Pentagon study determines the Oklahoma bombing was caused by more than one bomb," Strategic Investment Newsletter, 3/20/96.

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 05:30 AM
Here's a summary of Brig. Gen. Partin's analysis of the OKC bombing:

Gen. Partin is no slouch either. He was a top-tier USAF ordinance expert who worked on countless USAF weapons and explosives projects through the course of his career. He was called in by the government to investigate the OKC bombing, and subsequently set off all the alarm bells when he discovered the evidence of extra bombs in the building and the destruction pattern that could not have been caused by the truck bomb. They quickly put the hush-hush on him and he has been trying to get his information out since. The same criminal removal of evidence from the destroyed building was conducted by FEMA and the FBI, buried in landfill with armed guards protecting the site.

You can download one of his lecture presentations regarding OKC here:

They did it at OKC, they did it again in NYC, and they won't hesitate to do it once more so long as people keep denying to themselves the obvious reality. It's my guess that OKC was a practice run for 9-11.

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:59 AM

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Umm, all explosions create a mushroom cloud.

With that much cotton-white smoke?

We could probably further investigate Jakarta but I don't have time right now.

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:09 AM
You posted that you emailed the BYU, and quoted parts of their response.
Did you realize that emails can be cracked? Also the return, outgoing ones.
It is not wise to include parts of the return text regarding your private communications, I thought to tell you this and all the other members, just for your own protection.
The return address can be quite telltaling.
The Internet can be a vivacious but also a vicious niche of society, with many strange characters.

I do understand that the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology is exagerating :

Fulton College Response to Professor Steven Jones’s Statements Regarding Collapse of World Trade Center

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

I'm going to perform a profound dissemination of your ongoing vicious attack on Prof. Steven Jones, who I admire for his courage in exploring the boundaries of known physics in his specialisms, against all conservative opposition from less gifted opponents in the scientific community.

1. - "" Through the academic process, ideas should be advanced, challenged, and debated by peer-review in credible venues. ""

A manifest of chauvenistic american conservative scientific thought processes.
These administrators at Brigham Young University must live in an artificial negligense bubble.

Here you have a german webpage about the renown INTERNATIONAL publisher Elsevier :
Translate it from german to english with Babelfish .

Since 1985: Global expansion - simultaneous concentration on core activities after deep restructuring 1985, with purchase in Oxford of the resident publishing house Pergamon Press in 1991, with which the number of scientific journals was extended clearly, announces Elsevier in the year 1993 the union with the British medium enterprise Reed International. From this the enterprise Reed Elsevier PLC emerges. After the acquisition of Cell press in 1999 buys Reed Elsevier in the year 2001 the US-American science publishing house Harcourt. The business fields of the media company Reed Elsevier global set up covers now four ranges: Science & medicine (Elsevier), Law (LexisNexis), Education (Harcourt), and Economics (Reed Business International). Among the core businesses of Elsevier, with seat in Amsterdam, rank the scientific, technical and medical publications ("scientific, technical and medical" = STM). Elsevier publishes annually approximately 1,800 scientific journals and 2,200 books. Altogether approximately 20,000 works and titles belong to the publisher's catalogue of Elsevier. About nine million readers use world-wide the specialized knowledge, which is located in specific publications from Elsevier. Among the publications from Elsevier rank a multiplicity of medical, scientific and technical standard works. The first publications of new scientific research, which is cared for in fifteen different groups of publishing houses by Elsevier, covers a broad topic spectrum: from the human- to the veterinary medicine, to biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics up to social and economic science. Famous works from the house Elsevier are e.g.. "The Lancet" or "The internationally Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Science". Several Nobelprice laurates have their innovative research with Elsevier published, among others, Robert E. Lucas, who won in 1972 the Nobelprice for economic science, or Sydney Burner and Robert Horvitz, which received 2002 the Nobelprice for medicine. ""

Another quote :

Elsevier on-line: Boundless knowledge - at any time.
Elsevier already recognized the importance of on-line communication for the scientific research with the beginning of the digital revolution. Therefore the electronic scientific publication is evaluated with Elsevier as the printed products of classical design of equal standing publication.
Elsevier is with ScienceDirect, the science portal, entrance to approximately 1,700 scientific magazines of Elsevier and other publication offers, one of the largest InterNet publishers of the world. ScienceDirect applies with scientists all over the world as a highly developed instrument for the development of scientific sources and full texts.
Much used electronic source of information in the health service is also MDConsult, which is called by over 250.000 subscribers in medicine and care institutes. In former times if the procurement of medical knowledge was a question of days or weeks, then is it today mouse-clicks away, with exact information on the screen supplied.
Embase delivers as a data base in the range of the secondary literature, abstracts and indicated information to biomedical and pharmakological publications.
Scirus online is comparable to a free search engine for researchers and scientists, offered by Elsevier - regarding precision and massive extent comparable with "Google®", but exclusively to scientific research purposes.

You should all try Scirus, its my favorite scientific search engine for many years already.


That said about credible venues, let's move on to the definition of Peer Review :

Nobody is blocking peer review, by anyone able to read with his own eyes, of prof. Jones thesis, to be published by a worldwide reknown publishing House, namely Elsevier, see above credentials of Elsevier.

Definition of Peer Review :
PR is the public scrutinizing of a proposed thesis, publicized in a scientific journal or book, by scientists in the same fields of research, and who then publicize their criticism or support for the thesis in their own publication of choise, after DUPLICATING the proposed thesis following the given directions in the original thesis.

Professor Jones has for sure first asked Elsevier to publish his thesis in one of their Physics Journals, but he and Elsevier's editors both realized fairly quickly, that you can not ever publicize such a political loaden thesis in a physics journal, you HAVE to put it up in public, in another science forum, and they choose for their inhouse internationally known Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Science.

The reason is obvious, not one physics based, or structural engineering based peer review of prof. Jones thesis can be thoroughly done, without being able to DUPLICATE his proposed collapse theory, the demolition theory, in a computerized simulation, without full access to all the necessairy resources.
You can not embark on a queste for physics facts to see if a demolition theory is viable, if you have no FULL access to most of the facts and sources. Period.

And here lays the obvious culprit :
US authorities keep a firm lid on exactly those resources, so needed to scrutinize their Official WTC collapse theories.
No access is allowed to far too many of the original WTC blueprints, the audio tapes, the video tapes and pictures they seizured at the Pentagon and all WTC buildings which collapsed on 11 September 2001.
And their explanation for this lockdown of resources:
""We need them in the court proceedings against ONE man, named Moussouai, a man who already confessed to have been part of the 9/11 "arabic" side of the 9/11 planning.""
So this perfectly clear case, which is still not processed in court to my knowledge, which will obviously end in a sure conviction, is more IMPORTANT then the queste for knowledge worldwide, to find out what exactly happened on 9/11 !

This is such a clear case of political obstruction, aided by a whole descending line of civil servants, from top to bottom, that I do not waste more words on it.


Let's proceed by reading between the lines of that press report from BYU :

Pay attention to the following wording in the press report :
"" including many of BYU's own faculty members. "" and combine that sentence with the last one :
" The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.
Which means for the casual reader, that there are also a lot of members of several faculty's who DO follow prof. Jones train of thoughts !
Who are obviously not a member of the College faculty's administration from prof. Jones (none of them, normally, are Physics or Structural Engineering scientists btw, but Economists), or the structural engineering faculty , see this blatant non-scientific remark :
"" 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 .

That, my dear readers, is university jargon for :
"" This is gonna cost us a load of grants money from the government, we have to stop this lunatic, who obviously don't want to adhere to our precious american capitalists' economic rules for "free scientific research", the GRANTS system;
let's find a silly reason, like smearing a reknown European publisher, so we can scare him and them off the subject,
and calm down our fund raisers and granting corporations.
Who cares about the truth, money always comes FIRST!
Damn stupid cross-grained liberal, mumblemumblemumble.....
And we already got bombarded with heaps of emails from all these CIA coached internet forums freepers, Holy Lord, help us find an acceptable solution""

These administrators have choosen for the cowardly scientific approach, and I despise them for that.


Howard, do you want to challenge the pre-collapse seismic spikes, at last clearly to observe in the equalized nm/s magnitude drawings from LDEO, kindly posted by Long Lance for me?

And let's concentrate on the FACT, that all 3 precollapse spike groups are nearly identical, while logic prescribes, that the one from the WTC 7 collapse should at least be 30 to 50 % smaller than the others, since that buildings core collumns were substantially less higher than the WTC 1 and 2 core collumns, and the WTC 7 seismic precollapse spikes surely could in NO official explained way been BIGGER as the ACTUAL collapse seismic spikes in the drawings from LDEO at Pallisades, New York seismic station, recorded on 9/11. But, they are, and a lot bigger.
Explain please, holding on to the official explanation of the WTC 7 collapse.

Howard, face it, they made a visibly controllable, not to be retracted, mistake, and a huge, clearly to see for everybody, one.

new topics

top topics

<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in