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.

 

WTC-7 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

page: 19
7
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


I was actually pointing out that someone lied about it (Jones) and his paper was more of a "letter."

Jones paper was actually refused by his peers at BYU.

As far as the steel turning to dust... the only one that makes that claim is Judy Woods. I am hoping JP that you don't buy that chicks snake oil.




posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by cashlink
 


Not sure why... let me try it again:
Ok.....it's not working.

www.bentham.org...

That is the home page. Try searching it:

The Open Civil Engineering Journal

Volume 2 Issue 1
ISSN NO: 1874-1495

Here is a link to the download:

www.bentham-open.org...


[edit on 5-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



First of all your second link dose not work!
www.bentham-open.org...


Your first link takes me to a front page.

I ask "YOU" a question on proving what you have said about Pro Steven Jones report.

Now YOU want me to read everything in this web site, wich could take weeks.

I am only interested in Steven Jones Report!

Some how, you You want me to believe You just discredit Jone Report, on what one man has to say about him Hmmmm...

What has the (SEI/ASCE) has to say about Pro Steven Jones report?

Now I am not going to play this game of dodging Questions!
I simply ask You to prove to me and eveyone on this thread about Pro Steven Jones report, and the peer review, and Who has discredit his work.

You only sent me a link that has 100 or maybe 1,000 of report...

Now "YOU" made this "claim" the Burden of proof is on YOU!

You are trying to send me on a wild goose chase away from Pro Steven Jones Report.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Crash,

Please link me to the report you would like me to look at . I will not get to it until tomorrow. Sorry, I have been on a few sites today posting on several threads....

I am not avoiding you.

Thanks

[edit on 5-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Losing tenure would be a pretty good reason not to speak up, wouldn't you say?

Its not a claim made by Dr. Woods, its what happened. How it happened and how much it happened are not things I care to argue about, and nothing I tend to agree with her on. I specifically did not link you to her site to avoid any kind of situation like that.

I deeply apologize for asking you to look for yourself, as you can see by threading me i believe in looking it up first. Found this tho and thought it was interesting...

...Jones came along, but he initially said that it is "...a hypothesis to be tested. That's a big difference from a conclusion..."

The person that wrote that was debunking Jones, but his point rings loud and true. There is no conclusion to date.
I found pictures, but not the video either way...





After all John Lear said it was holograms and he disappeared...



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 

No THroatYogurt "YOU" have to find the report!

You made the statement NOW BACK IT UP!

I am willing to discuse this with you "BUT" YOU are makeing a claim here about The Jones report befor we can even disscuse this I need to see PROOF

ThroatYorgurt, If You want to discredit Steven Jones report, I have no problem with that, but YOU have to give me more that some one statements.

I am not going to let this one go.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by jprophet420
 


I was actually pointing out that someone lied about it (Jones) and his paper was more of a "letter."

Jones paper was actually refused by his peers at BYU.

As far as the steel turning to dust... the only one that makes that claim is Judy Woods. I am hoping JP that you don't buy that chicks snake oil.




(I was actually pointing out that someone lied about it (Jones) and his paper was more of a "letter.")

Why would you make such a statement to begin with?
You say you were pointing out that someone lied about it! who is this "SOMEONE"? ????? "Letter" what are YOU talking about?


(Jones paper was actually refused by his peers at BYU.)

"Really" who are these Peers that refused his reports at (BYU.)Did they say Why they refused his report at BYU.

See!, you still are makeing all these Erroneous accusation. Now You have open the door to proof what You are saying.

I want to discuse the Jones report with you but first we need to get to the bottom of these statment you have made.

You are making claims against Jones report befor we can even talk about it.

I see, you are not willing to talk about any ones theorys, or Hypothesis, but only the Government 911 report.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 



Thank you

I noticed, that alot of your questions have not been answered by (ThrotYogurt.)

I get the feeling he in "ignoring" you I have been reading your question you have ask him still no answer.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


I believe I have found one report and I am sure there will be many to follow.

Here are letters that Steven Jones wrote in defending his reasurch.

www.journalof911studies.com...


I have responded to your fallacious/misleading charges and smears and now invite
you (James Fetzer) to respond, in writing, for publication of our exchange in the
Journal of 9/11 Studies – Letters section. This same courtesy I have extended on more
than one occasion to Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds and others, even those who
seem to delight in attacks on other 9/1-truth researchers, rather than focusing on those
who perpetrated or profited from the 9/11 attacks. I do NOT seek to stifle research on
various hypotheses, but I do object strongly to unsubstantiated/false charges and to ad
hominem attacks on co-researchers.
– Steven Jones, June 4, 2007.


Hence, I defend my co-9/11-researchers versus the
derogatory barbs hurled against them by James Fetzer.
And I propose that he save his venom for those who
support the war-provoking “official story of 9/11”
promoted by the Bush/Cheney administration.

Steven Jones
There has been no response to my email challenging the Wood/Reynolds ad hominem
attacks which they published on their webistes.
Fetzer: You have many loyal fans who have no idea at all when research is "scientific".
What an insult to so many – and such nonsense. In my discussions with members of
the 9/11 community (I do not call them “fans”), I find that they understand when research is fact-based and empirical, when the research is scientific. But, let Fetzer
support this broad and categorical derogation if he can.

So befor we talk about Steven Jones Report I want to clear the air of who some of these sell-outs are.

These people are the ones who are making false statements and then refuse to back them up.

I still stand with Pro Steven Jones.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 



www.journalof911studies.com...

Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1.
Gregory H. Urich

I have read his report
Where dose it say that Pro Steven Jones is wrong?

[edit on 7/5/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 7/5/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 
Dude...really, c'mon your avatar...please. do us all a favor and change it will ya?
that is about the grossest thing I have seen on here.
You're just hurting yourself because I for one don't even stop long enough to read your post, I just scroll right past them as fast as I can so I don't trhow up.


[edit on 5-7-2008 by ObamaMomma]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ObamaMomma
 


Its that bad, I guess you are right lol

Thank you for letting me know I will remove it.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink


I have read his report
Where dose it say that Pro Steven Jones is wrong?



He says that the speed of the fall does not require any help from explosives or thermite.

Guess you didn't read it all that close, eh? Cuz he's pretty clear on that point.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Is that it. I thought there would be more to take Jones down.

there really isnt that much is there.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Cashlink...

First of all.. MUCH better avatar.

Now... you need to chill. I posted that I was busy yesterday. My better half wanted to go to the movies and I had 4 different conversations going on on different sites. I assured you that you were not getting ignored. (being a government shill is hard work)

Now, back to Mr. Jones.

I think we (or me) go confused in regards to his "paper." Mr. Jones believes that since people at his forum "review" his papers, he calls that peer reviewed. This is not accurate. NONE of Jones papers or letters have passed the peer reviewed process.

You and I have been talking about 2 of them.

The first letter was posted on the BYU Website. BIG mistake. He was asked by his superiors if if had been reviewed. He removed it. He continued to post this paper on line. (CT sites) He was suspended on paid leave, ultimately he was severed from BYU where he was a physics professor.

Was Dr. Jones wrong? Well, it never passed the peer reviewed process. That means he got it wrong. I am not qualified to peer review a paper (not a civil engineer).

Here is what BYU had to say about the paper:


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".
Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller


The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' 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' 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 BYU physics department


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


Here is more:


Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU



Jones 42 page paper has not been supported by his peers.

I will get to the paper he also stated was published a little later.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink


Is that it. I thought there would be more to take Jones down.

there really isnt that much is there.



Huh?

You asked what was in Urich's paper that showed he is wrong.

I showed you.

I also showed that despite what you claimed, you lied when you said that you read Urich's paper, because anyone that would have read it would have been VERY clear on that point.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


His papers didn't pass peer review or they weren't peer reviewed? There is a world of difference.

Either way as I stated I don't see anyone posting links to a peer reviewed paper supporting the OS.

So 'debunking' someone on the grounds they haven't been peer reviewed isn't really debunking, its just bitching.

I notice your external source is only speaking of wtc 1 and 2 . This thread is about wtc7.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by jprophet420]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


JP,

His paper has been rejected by his peers. Was it properly reviewed? I don't know. He had another "letter" published and he claimed it was peer reviewed. Upon investigation into this letter..it was shown that it was not reviewed.

In regards to this being WTC-7, I agree. But I am answering a question from another poster.

I would prefer this thread continue on WTC7 and not Mr. Jones.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
This thread back fired on the truth denier that posted it.

He was trying to prove that a 50 story building can fall like a controlled demolition with some fire in it and had it blown in his face...hahah


You can disprove the truths kiddos. You may darken, cover, and even stand infornt of th truth but that will not make it go awat.

If life is a highway and truth is the traffic, I dare you to stand in traffic.

I know I wouldnt even attempt to hit the brakes when it comes to ploughing through lies.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Hey weedwahacker. Mr hjones said that wtc came down with controlled demolitions.

He is a professionl and a expert when it comes to these things.

Last I heard you worked at white castle or something, can you tell me how your experience or lack there of can at all even counter one argument from Jones.


You still are 9as usual)denying all the eyewitnneses, firemen, police and other good americans who not only heard countdown to the demolitons of wtc 7 but the series of bank, bang, bang that is a tell tail sign of controlled demo.

I dont know why you bother coming here. I am sure everyone (who matters) can agree that WTC 7 was nothing but a controlled demolition.

Didnt you get them memo?

[edit on 6-7-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 6-7-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 

Agreed.

So you (apparently) think that the fires were able to weaken the structure (enough for global failure) along with the structural damage from debris.

I don't.

So heres the problem: There are literally thousands of professionals
coming out and stating their case for both sides (OS or CT). Many of them are Ph.D's. Then there are millions of armchair forensic investigators out there 'debunking' and 'proving' things all day long.

Who is right, who is wrong? There is no possible way that anyone can assassinate the credentials/character of every professional who makes a stance. Its pretty much a stalemate until all possible scenarios have been ruled out except one.

Coupled with tons of missing evidence, it becomes quite the pickle.



new topics




 
7
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join