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: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I'm an Associate Member of "Scholars" and I have some sympathy for the remaining skeptics. I still haven't reached a final "tipping point" myself.

Personally, however, I would urge anyone seriously interested to focus not on the Twin Towers but on WTC7. There is legitimate controversy surrounding the possible causes and manner of collapse of the main towers, but no such scientific controversy around WTC7.

This, to my mind, unless somebody produces a serious refutation, is the smoking gun.

There is simply no credible explanation either for the collapse of that building or the manner of its collapse.

Unless someone can show us otherwise, we are forced to conclude that that building was subject to a controlled demolition. And if we pull on that thread, all the other doubts and questions become much more important and credible.

The fraudulent video is "interesting" but even if we confirm that it was produced by disinfo specialists working for the American government, it doesn't prove complicity in 9-11. (One could reasonably argue, for example, that they were simply desperate to defuse the growing challenge to their charges that Bin Laden was involved)

But if WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, and no one can present an innocent explanation for that fact, then, clearly, we're in a whole new ball game.

Back in November, I asked Steven if he'd researched the possibility that, for innocent purposes (like the fires had made the building untenable) it was possible that charges were placed during that day. The answer was a very clear negative. The placing of such charges would take weeks to plan and days to implement.




posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarryStottle
but no such scientific controversy around WTC7.



But what do the strucutral engineers say?

Have you found any that support the controlled demo theory yet?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   


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


thanx for the aticle AgentSmith
..maybe with some good luck and more peopel willing to at least open thier eyes the 9/11 truth wont be black balled for decades



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

But what do the strucutral engineers say?

Have you found any that support the controlled demo theory yet?


This is why I say I haven't yet reached the tipping point myself. Essentially what we have is a well argued case for controlled demolition which has not been refuted even by the official inquiry (which admits that there is a low probability of its own explanation being valid)

I can confirm that Jones consulted several demolition experts in coming to his view and they all appear to believe that the collapse could only have occurred in the manner we've seen if it had been a controlled demolition.

It is noteworthy and, I believe, significant, that no reputable structural engineer is stepping forward to refute the theory. That doesn't, of course, constitute evidence, but the longer the silence continues, the more confident I become that there will be no refutation.

I have to admit that in a sense I would welcome a refutation. Much as I detest the Bush administration and all it stands for, if this charge stands up, the resulting crisis could get very violent and encompass us all.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
More importantly, how many engineers have come out in favor of the controlled demo theory?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
One thing that seems to be left out of "investigations" is first hand accounts. People who were there often have a better idea what happened than those who were not. Some people who were there can be read at letsroll911.org... The article is 9/11 Explosive Truth Revealed.
There is also the fact that those with an agenda may be circulating disinformation. We know that people have been paid to promote a certain view.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No.


Rage, rofl.


-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.


General physics is undoubtedly very relevant to those collapses.

If you think that physics is unrelated to those fields then you are totally ignorant of what grounds those fields are based upon (basic physics!).

The problems that Jones points out are mainly, and not surprisingly, physics problems. There's no problem here.


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.


To associate these guys with Hitler or the KKK is a little unfair, and not to mention asinine.


If I'm not mistaken, this is the second time Jones has had this paper peer reviewed. Jones himself stated that he understood that the first review was perfectly reasonable and fair. And now it's passed another. I would stop whining about the review process and address the material now, Howie.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
More importantly, how many engineers have come out in favor of the controlled demo theory?


Only for the likes of Howard is science a popularity contest.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
General physics is undoubtedly very relevant to those collapses.

If you think that physics is unrelated to those fields then you are totally ignorant of what grounds those fields are based upon (basic physics!).


Fine. Where is the review by qualified, independent and anonymous experts in Physics?







Originally posted by bsbray11
If I'm not mistaken, this is the second time Jones has had this paper peer reviewed. Jones himself stated that he understood that the first review was perfectly reasonable and fair. And now it's passed another. I would stop whining about the review process and address the material now, Howie.


You can not claim that this is a legitimate peer review. It is not. It does not meet even the most basic criteria of what is understood by the term “peer review.”

The issue at hand is a question of engineering. Where is the review by engineers?

The only one whining here is you. Jones can’t get any legitimate support for his theories so he goes to the kook factory.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
More importantly, how many engineers have come out in favor of the controlled demo theory?


Only for the likes of Howard is science a popularity contest.


Who said anything about a popularity contest. If his hypothesis is valid, then there should be some support for it by people who understand who buildings stand up and what makes them fall down.

That is how the peer review process works.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Listen, if all the reviewers were largely biased as you claim, which claim did they unrightfully confirm? After all, if there's something terribly wrong with the review process, it should leave some traces, see 9/11 Commission et al.

Point it out!

As it is, you're demanding proof of a negative, a negative which could only be disputed by proving positive the bias of the reviewers, which we can't. Can you?

PS: In case you ever see Jones at the "kook factory" (unlikely), please forward my regards to him. I've been told you're a frequent visitor.


[edit on 30-1-2006 by Lumos]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Lets say I get 50 of my peers, and we all agree that busweiser is the best beer, does that mean that Budsweiser is the best beer? No, but we all believe it so it must be true. Simple analogy, same results and that is how is works in the scientific community sometimes....



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Lets say I get 50 of my peers, and we all agree that busweiser is the best beer, does that mean that Budsweiser is the best beer? No, but we all believe it so it must be true. Simple analogy, same results and that is how is works in the scientific community sometimes....


Not really, 'cause that is an opinion.

Science is not based on opinions.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Science is based on logic and known facts.
I'm not saying it's the best way all the time, but that's how it works and it seems to work well so far, considering the technological leaps we have enjoyed over our lifetimes and beyond.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryStottle
But if WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, and no one can present an innocent explanation for that fact, then, clearly, we're in a whole new ball game.

Back in November, I asked Steven if he'd researched the possibility that, for innocent purposes (like the fires had made the building untenable) it was possible that charges were placed during that day. The answer was a very clear negative. The placing of such charges would take weeks to plan and days to implement.


What I would find curious though is that any explosives would have to be placed covertly. This would be difficult, though as the building housed government departments - if they were involved it may make it easier than other situations. However was it not subject to bomb checks like the rest of the complex, and would there not be the same complications as with the towers in the sheer logistics of it to make it very difficult/impossible?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Science is not based on opinions.


Well that's ironic.

The fact of the matter, Howard, for me anyway, is that I don't really care who has reviewed Jones' work. I wouldn't really care if it was just sent back to him (which it obviously wasn't).

What gets me is what he says (and the arguments in general), not what other people say about what he says.

I know from personal experience that these so-called experts or etc. of these fields are just as human as everyone else and can display quite some ignorance from time to time. For all I know, Jones, et. al. may be the only sensible people left among the scholarly elite.

So what I want to see is someone proving Jones wrong. That's what I ask for. A good thorough, and honest, debunking of what Jones is proposing. Not a bunch of bickering over who liked his paper and the manner in which they liked it. For this issue, you can stuff the review process for all I care.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
What I would find curious though is that any explosives would have to be placed covertly. This would be difficult, though as the building housed government departments - if they were involved it may make it easier than other situations. However was it not subject to bomb checks like the rest of the complex, and would there not be the same complications as with the towers in the sheer logistics of it to make it very difficult/impossible?


Smith, I know this seemingly implausible implication is important for your "case," so to speak, but can you not see that this issue comes secondary to first of all proving whether or not explosives were in the buildings in the first place?

That would be the logical order of things.

1) Were explosives used?

2) If yes, how?

And not the other way around. I can tell you right now that the "how" part is going to be a lot of speculation just based on the nature of the question.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I disproved Jones in another thread, and i tire of these antics. It is your job to give us proof of a controlled demo. This is like saying "Aliens are rea, but I have no proof, you just have to believe me. i will construct a story filled if one line truths, leave out the credible stuff and insertfluff that will convince most people of my story bieng real."

Give us evidence of controlled demolitions and all the questions will be resolved. There were 2 seperate commissions who concluded that the planes and ensuing fires caused structural damage and the buildings collapsed. I mean, if you were going to do a controlled demo, put 2 trucks with larger bombs in the basement, like the last attack on the WTC. Then pull a controlled demo and bring them both down simultaneously. THat would have been dramatic. I mean, according to your reasoning, why wouldnt the US sacrifice 20000 instead of 3000?

We were attacked and they, AQ, finished the job they started in 93.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.




i never said they were idoits

but have they even looked at how the WTC towers were built? they were hollow in side with all of the STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS on the out side so they could cram as much office related space they could into the towers. thats what gave the towers their look. plus there no visual evidence of secondary explosions to confirm this.

the only thing inside of the WTC towers were the elevator shafts.

those planes took out enough of those supports that it was a just a matter of time before they collapsed, and it was a mericle that the tops didnt just fall off or that they managed to stay up that long.

the reason they just fell on them selves is because once the tops of the buildings started to come down there was really nothing to stop them and the rest of the building wasnt designed to support that much weight falling like that. the buildings just lost to fire and gravity.

so to convince you guys and these people wanting to investigate this it would have to be a colapse like you would see in the movies? like the top of the building falling off above the crash site.

and besides, controlled demos start at the bottom of building, not the top. a controlled demo from the top would do nothing.

"OMG it fell straight down, too perfectly, like it wasn't faked!"

i dont trust the government, but you need to do alot of looking before you spout off. i respect your minds and all the thinking you guys do. you have some great ideas and some that would make better fiction. bush isnt the smartest president, but he is not dumb enough to do anything like this. someone would talk.

if he did anything, he ignored warnings, but nothing else. "That sounds like something out of a book or movie." Its like FDR and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Would you believe that someone would take commercial jet liners and turn them into guided missiles in the pre 9/11 world? probally not, given the means that most, if not all, terrorist attacks were done with bombs. the USS Cole, The US Embassies in Afirca, Oklhoma City and so on and so forth.

The Government did not plan 9/11 but used it to its advantage.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
but have they even looked at how the WTC towers were built? they were hollow in side with all of the STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS on the out side so they could cram as much office related space they could into the towers. thats what gave the towers their look.


Look around the 9/11 threads for terms like "core columns" or "core structure" or etc. The WTC Towers were far from hollow; the strongest support columns in the building were around the offices within the building, ie, the "core structure."

I think the rest of your post could stand some insight you may gain from browsing around here as well.

[edit on 30-1-2006 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join