It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

NEWS: Steve Jones gets approval of peers - "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T)

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Professor Steve Jones is well known amongst the 9/11 truth movement as being the author of a paper questioning the official reasons behind the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings in the events of September 11th 2001.

People have laid down accusations that he has not got the approval of his peers, though things are now set to change. Fellow experts and scholars have formed a new group to back his claims and to bring the events into question.
 



deseretnews.com
Last fall, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones made headlines when he charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of "pre-positioned explosives." Now, along with a group that calls itself "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," he's upping the ante.

"We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11," the group says in a statement released Friday announcing its formation. "We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad."

Headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, the group is made up of 50 academicians and others.

They include Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush's first term. Most of the members are less well-known.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


You can also visit the group's website here:

www.st911.org...

Now that he has approval from his peers, surely the questions and issues he has raised will have to be taken far more seriously and considered in great detail.
The list of people in the group include some very influential and knowledgable people, so the work carried out by them should truly be significant.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by AgentSmith]




posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
i am so glad to hear that! 9/11 was the day i began to seriously consider the ravings of my resident conspiracy theorist, my mother.


i wonder what will come of this. i've bookmarked the link and will check it often. we should get a list of everyone on steven jones' team and make sure they're not 'suicided.'



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Interestingly, someone has voted 'No: Not Right' for this story, I would love to know how and why this person believes this is not appropiate news for ATSNN?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
This is good to see, will it change much probably not. more weight to the scales of justice.


You have voted AgentSmith for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


df1

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

AgentSmith
I would love to know how and why this person believes this is not appropiate news for ATSNN?

Ya got a WOTS vote from me too.

Now for my answer to your question. It seems to me that we have a cabal on ATS that does its best to vote down news that questions the integrity of the current administration. IMHO either these folks are extremely naive and blinded by thier politics or they are professional disinformation agents.

It also appears to me that this group pumps up news that is positive toward the current US administration, much to the detriment of ATS.

Just my 2 cents worth.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Thank you, interestingly I got 3 no Votes - 2 saying it was not right for ATS!

It's quite ironic because I am not one who subscribes to Prof Jones work, though now he has got this much backing from his peers, I may take more interest. But I thought it was something substantial people should be aware of anyway regardless of my own opinons.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I don't see why this wouldn't be appropriate.

I've never heard of this guy, but I'm going to check him out and see what he has to say!



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I hope these guys drill this administrations ass to the wall....Its staring us all right in the face yet most will kill to defend those lies spewed forth by the administration in order to propogate fear and control and the usurping of our precious constitution...which hjas been raped like a five year old boy in a catholic church. "even when the majority is one, the truth is still the truth"....ghandi. And no matter how much crap the administration throws out there they can never fully bury the truth. God bless this new group and may they be succesful in their quest for the truth!!!!

And as for this story "not being right for ATS".... there are few threads that have more right to be on this site then this story right here...the implications only reach the very core of our 21st century struggle.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by TONE23]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Thank you, interestingly I got 3 no Votes - 2 saying it was not right for ATS!


Hopefully they just missed what the post was about. This is pretty big stuff.

If the media would only cover this...



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I personally believe that the Bush administration simply does not have the imagination to have planned or executed 9/11. However I do believe that they had ample warning and either simply did not believe it OR let it happen.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
the guy is right about one thing. there were two explsions on 9/11 and those were from when the plans hit the towers. if you all knew a even little on how the WTC towers were built you wouldnt jump to your "conclusions" so fast. also im not a bu#e but i think also alot of it is hatred towards the bush administration.

just an observation



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
the guy is right about one thing. there were two explsions on 9/11 and those were from when the plans hit the towers. if you all knew a even little on how the WTC towers were built you wouldnt jump to your "conclusions" so fast.


These guys aren't idiots. Look at Steven Jones' credentials for starters. This is something that could potentially ruin his career, and I'm sure he's aware of it. He wouldn't come out with something like this unless he was sure of it.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Great find and interesting story.


Sorry I missed the vote.

This is the 9/11 hypothesis that makes the most sense to me. Kudos to Jones and his peers for putting their lives and careers on the line. I hope the American people recognize the risk they are taking and back up their findings.

Time for some truth in US science.




ed to add 'US'

[edit on 29-1-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
the guy is right about one thing. there were two explsions on 9/11 and those were from when the plans hit the towers. if you all knew a even little on how the WTC towers were built you wouldnt jump to your "conclusions" so fast. also im not a bu#e but i think also alot of it is hatred towards the bush administration. qoute from krazy ivan



well krazy ivan..it seems as though you are the one who doesnt know much about these types of buildings. these were steel framed central core buildings with load bearing capacity that was well above the standard. even after the planes hit the buildings there were more than enough supports to bear the increased load ....your "observation" must have been made with your eyes and mind closed.... look into the schematics of the buildings alittle better before you lay judgement on others....steve jones is more than experienced and now he has the backing of some major players. these people are not giong to put their careers on the line for nothing or some fanciful whim to get back at the bush administration....but the truth is the truth even when the majority is one. And how do yuo explain WTC building 7....it came down in 6- 8 seconds about 5 hours after the towers fell.....and not just collapsed but it fell right into its own footprint.....anyone who knows anything at all about building demolition will tell you straight out that building demolitions is an exact science. and i mean exact. As far as your comment on people are just hating bush....what are you a paid propogandanist? youobviously are missing the importance of this matter...If 911 was rigged and set up then that means the whole war on terror is a lie and that has some grand implications as to the legitimacy of this entire administration....but you think that we are searching for the truth to get back at bush?....lmao...listen champ, we could care less about who it is in office...those of us who really want the real truth dont care who it is in office...if they are crooked they have to go!
Your mistake is that you are trying to play this out as a political party game and to us here at ATS we dont play that game...we want the truth regardless of who is running the show be it a dem or a rep. so dont go turning this into another spin meister episode please!

[edit on 30-1-2006 by TONE23]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
[edit on 30-1-2006 by TONE23]

[edit on 30-1-2006 by TONE23]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   
So, if 50 credible scientists all decided that we were aliens from another plane, and they decided to publish what they thought was truth, wouldn't we write them off as nuts?

I don't care how many credible people you come up with, because on the other side of the coin you have those who know what happened and they don't have to argue because the proof is there.

Where is the evidence of controlled explosives? Have any of you ever watched the towers fall? go back and actaully watch the footage and you will see that the top tips, starts to slide and then the collapse begins. There would have had to have been some pretty big ass explosions if the structure was so well made as many of you argue in these posts.


df1

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I don't care how many credible people you come up with...

Obviously you've already made up your mind that the official story is true and you are unwilling to consider anything that might change what you already believe. Given this reality, I fail to understand why you have bothered reading this thread.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
No.

As far as I can see, the Jones paper has not been “peer reviewed” as the common definition of that term implies.

The major failings:

-None of the members of the “scholars for 9/11 truth” are experts in the appropriate fields of discussion, namely Structural engineering or Forensic Engineering.

-None of these so-called reviewers are anonymous.

-All of the reviewers are biased toward the subject matter through prior (unreviewed) works on this topic.

-There is no set editorial standard by which the so called reviews are being held to.

The Jones paper is not in any sense a scientific one. It is an opinion piece and should be treated like one.

To imply that the paper has validity because it has been accepted by a group with like minded opinions is like saying ”Mien Kampf” has validity because it has been accepted by the KKK.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I am willing to take any information that is available, but I still have not been provided one ounce of proof of a controlled demoliton. I made up my mind based on the facts of both sides actually, so I am not as narrow minded as you may believe. There is nothing that shows that controlled demolitions were used. For a 100 story building, there would have been multiple explosions that would be timed within milli-seconds of each other that would have been picked up on ANY of the footage I have seen. To my knowledge there has never been an implosion of that size, and after some research found that failed demolitions are common.

I am not trying to conviince anyone of a theory, I am simply stating personal choice of what happened based on science and common sense. I have seen to many documentaries which explain what happened.

Good luck to Steve Jones and his peers, but until they can come forward with some type of proof of controlled demo (how about just ONE blasting cap?) I will agree with the 'official neo-con cabal
story'.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
www.physics.byu.edu...

and if you go to his website, there are 3 pictures of WTC 7, and the last one shows it "collapsed upon the footprint of itself". Have you actually looked at the picture, the building still has one corner standing about 10 stories high. I would not expect that in a 'controlled demolition', but it supports the official theory that it suffered damage (not a direct hit, which everyone points out) from the attack and subsequent collapse, and that a fire raged for over 7 hours inside the building, fueled by Natural gas lines and tanks in the basement floors.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join