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.

 

Professor Steven Jones Revisited: In His Own Words

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Dr. Steven Jones:

"A few days ago I was asked by a Professor at the University of Massachusetts what happened to me at BYU, in my own words. My response follows."
Source: Dr. Jones' blog at 9/11 Blogger


Visit the link above to read what Dr. Jones says about what happened at BYU. Some points to note:

* About 70 professors from the physics, math, psychology, and engineering departments agreed with Dr. Jones' theories.

* The "Thermitic Material" paper that was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal was also approved by BYU, specifically the chair of the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy who also said that the paper was "sound science".

* Dr. Jones was made an Emeritus Professor of Physics at BYU at the same time the above paper was published.

* Dr. Jones still has an office at BYU. A pension, and allowed to use BYU's equipment and faculty for his research.


So, it would appear that BYU fully backs Dr. Jones and his work, contrary to the rumors that have been flung around for the past few years. It's also obvious his work was reviewed and approved by his peers at BYU before being published.




posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Really? You believe someone who thinks he found archeological evidence for Jesus having lived once in North America? Years have passed and all those academics he claims endorsed his findings remain silent?

How much longer will people in the 9/11 truth movement remain duped by this man?



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Visit the link above to read what Dr. Jones says about what happened at BYU. Some points to note:

* About 70 professors from the physics, math, psychology, and engineering departments agreed with Dr. Jones' theories.


No, he doesn't say that Bonez:




In September 2005....

I asked the audience (about 70 in all) if they agreed with me that an investigation into 9/11 events was warranted.



This NIST report was finalized in October of 2005. I wonder how many of the 70 have read it. I wonder how many of the 70 think that painted on Nano Thermite think is the culprit.





* The "Thermitic Material" paper that was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal was also approved by BYU, specifically the chair of the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy who also said that the paper was "sound science".


Jones paid to have his paper published. Vanity Journal.


* Dr. Jones was made an Emeritus Professor of Physics at BYU at the same time the above paper was published.


and? This pretty much means his a retired professor in good standing.



So, it would appear that BYU fully backs Dr. Jones and his work, contrary to the rumors that have been flung around for the past few years. It's also obvious his work was reviewed and approved by his peers at BYU before being published.


Show me where BYU has come out and "fully backed" Dr. Jones and his work?



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

This NIST report was finalized in October of 2005. I wonder how many of the 70 have read it. I wonder how many of the 70 think that painted on Nano Thermite think is the culprit.


I wonder if you read before you posted?


I had invited professors from across campus and many came, from numerous disciplines including physics, math, psychology, engineering. I asked them to take the “kid gloves off” and tell me where I was in error. In particular, we watched the rapid, nearly-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 and discussed this at length. After two hours, we had to leave because a class had the room scheduled. But before they left, I asked the audience (about 70 in all) if they agreed with me that an investigation into 9/11 events was warranted. By show of hands, all agreed with this proposition, except one, a geology professor. The next day, he saw me on campus and said that he had changed his mind and that he now supported a full investigation into 9/11.



NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report (11/20/08)
wtc.nist.gov...

So at the time the the presentation was given there was an ongoing investigation, yet all 70 of the attendees agreed that there needed to be a new investigation. Why do you disagree with them, based on what evidence?



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
So at the time the the presentation was given there was an ongoing investigation, yet all 70 of the attendees agreed that there needed to be a new investigation. Why do you disagree with them, based on what evidence?


Bonez states this:


* About 70 professors from the physics, math, psychology, and engineering departments agreed with Dr. Jones' theories.


Jones does NOT state this. He states that they think there should be an investigation.

My point was, there was an investigation ongoing and was not released until a month after this alleged meeting.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I am curious as to how he explains the twisting/toppling motion that WTC7 had as it collapsed...doesnt sound symmetrical to me. And how would his "near symmetrical" fall manage to damage a building across the street from WTC7 so badly that it had to be torn down...



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Jones does NOT state this. He states that they think there should be an investigation.

And on what basis did they all agree that there needed to be a new investigation? His theories!

Unbelievable.....



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by jprophet420
So at the time the the presentation was given there was an ongoing investigation, yet all 70 of the attendees agreed that there needed to be a new investigation. Why do you disagree with them, based on what evidence?


Bonez states this:


* About 70 professors from the physics, math, psychology, and engineering departments agreed with Dr. Jones' theories.


Jones does NOT state this. He states that they think there should be an investigation.

My point was, there was an investigation ongoing and was not released until a month after this alleged meeting.



The NIST report has released multiple "final" reports. The NIST report is not mentioned in the blog or the OP.

They agreed that his theories had merit. More merit than the finished and ongoing investigations at that point in time. To say that one cannot question an ongoing investigation is ludicrous.

I ask again:


So at the time the the presentation was given there was an ongoing investigation, yet all 70 of the attendees agreed that there needed to be a new investigation. Why do you disagree with them, based on what evidence?


[edit on 9-5-2010 by jprophet420]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
I am curious as to how he explains the twisting/toppling motion that WTC7 had as it collapsed...doesnt sound symmetrical to me. And how would his "near symmetrical" fall manage to damage a building across the street from WTC7 so badly that it had to be torn down...


How about telling the whole story. WTC7 fell into all 4 streets adjacent to it, which is only saying that debris fell away in all 4 directions. The center of gravity was still in the footprint, meaning all of the mass was still centered around where the building once stood. It only leaned slightly, and the real kicker, NIST was totally unable to accurately model WTC7's collapse. They were unable to produce the same amount of symmetry (yes, real life was more symmetrical than their model could explain), and their model also could not achieve free-fall acceleration. What a shocker.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
I am curious as to how he explains the twisting/toppling motion that WTC7 had as it collapsed...doesnt sound symmetrical to me.

Would you care to point out the twisting in the following image, because it looks like WTC 7 is falling straight down:






Originally posted by vipertech0596
And how would his "near symmetrical" fall manage to damage a building across the street from WTC7 so badly that it had to be torn down...

Um, WTC 7 tipped slightly to the south near the end of it's fall and the only building "across the street" to the south was WTC 1 that had already collapsed. Got a source for your claim? Thanks.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I read somewhere in another thread that Steven Jones has been debunked as dis-info.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





Um, WTC 7 tipped slightly to the south near the end of it's fall and the only building "across the street" to the south was WTC 1 that had already collapsed. Got a source for your claim? Thanks.


30 West Broadway, was NORTH of WTC 7 and damaged by its collapse. So, while part of wtc 7 did tip and fall to the south, another sizable part of wtc 7 fell to the north and clobbered 30 west.

sites.google.com...



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


www.jod911.com...

For ever expert who says that 9/11 was controlled demolition you can find an expert who says that it wasn't.

How can somone be so sure that it was demolished without ignoring the sources and evidence that say that it wasn't?

How can somone be so sure that it wsa not demolished without ignoring the sources that say that it was?

Bonez how can you be so sure that it was demolished when there are sources and evidence that say that it wasn't?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Your question wasn't directed at me but I'll answer. I was taught physics. You don't even have to know much. Only kinematics and energy, velocity, acceleration, energy, work, displacement, etc.

It is a law of physics that if a falling body (which has kinetic energy) does work, then it loses that kinetic energy and so its velocity/acceleration is reduced. The maximum theoretical value for acceleration on the surface of the Earth, with nothing impeding the falling body whatsoever, is the acceleration of gravity. If something falls at that rate, then the kinetic energy of that body (its falling weight) is doing no work and exerting no energy. This is how WTC7 fell. So you can work out what that means by yourself. The falling building was exerting no energy on its lower structure as it sank down into itself.

Most people, when faced with this, just assume they are too stupid to understand physics 101 and there *must* be some expert out there who can resolve this, because surely WTC7 *couldn't* have been demolished. The trouble with that is that no one does have an answer for this, except to say the structure below must have already been 100% destroyed before anything collapsed onto it, which begs the question of what was failing it if not the falling weight. Even NIST couldn't reproduce this acceleration with their computer simulations, and had no explanation or energy calculations to show how this was feasible.

That's why "free-fall" is an issue and an argument in the first place. And for so many years it is still not debunked. Watching that building fall is what made me believe this stuff in the first place. It's this internal understanding that separates men from sheep. I am not afraid if people disagree with me, if they can't refute this information, and no one has.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I appreciate your effort to combat these mindless people who use the
excuse that the building tipped a "few degrees" on descent as the focus
of an asymmetrical collapse!


It's great to know several other profs backed Steven's work; this is new
info for me.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Your question wasn't directed at me but I'll answer. I was taught physics. You don't even have to know much. Only kinematics and energy, velocity, acceleration, energy, work, displacement, etc.

It is a law of physics that if a falling body (which has kinetic energy) does work, then it loses that kinetic energy and so its velocity/acceleration is reduced. The maximum theoretical value for acceleration on the surface of the Earth, with nothing impeding the falling body whatsoever, is the acceleration of gravity. If something falls at that rate, then the kinetic energy of that body (its falling weight) is doing no work and exerting no energy. This is how WTC7 fell. So you can work out what that means by yourself. The falling building was exerting no energy on its lower structure as it sank down into itself.

Most people, when faced with this, just assume they are too stupid to understand physics 101 and there *must* be some expert out there who can resolve this, because surely WTC7 *couldn't* have been demolished. The trouble with that is that no one does have an answer for this, except to say the structure below must have already been 100% destroyed before anything collapsed onto it, which begs the question of what was failing it if not the falling weight. Even NIST couldn't reproduce this acceleration with their computer simulations, and had no explanation or energy calculations to show how this was feasible.

That's why "free-fall" is an issue and an argument in the first place. And for so many years it is still not debunked. Watching that building fall is what made me believe this stuff in the first place. It's this internal understanding that separates men from sheep. I am not afraid if people disagree with me, if they can't refute this information, and no one has.


Thank you so much for your reply.

Well the free-fall point was refuted in the twin towers but I don't know about WTC7. Do you have a credible source?

I don't want to use FEMA or NIST as a source which are the most reliable ones that I've come across.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
Bonez how can you be so sure that it was demolished when there are sources and evidence that say that it wasn't?

Because of years of tireless research. And that includes looking at both sides.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by iamcpc
Bonez how can you be so sure that it was demolished when there are sources and evidence that say that it wasn't?

Because of years of tireless research. And that includes looking at both sides.


No actual research shows it. Making claims is not "research."

Let's review:

- No evidence of molten steel demonstrated. Temperatures were not high enough.

- No evidence of explosives demonstrated. No chemical traces found in numerous dust studies done; no evidence of effects of explosives on steel found.

- No evidence of "explosive squibs" demonstrated. No characteristics of "squibs" shown; characteristics are of overpressure from collapse fronts, massive amount of air forced out in around just 14 seconds.

These failures are just a few of the reasons why there is no possibility of getting any new investigation.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
Well the free-fall point was refuted in the twin towers but I don't know about WTC7. Do you have a credible source?

I don't want to use FEMA or NIST as a source which are the most reliable ones that I've come across.


NIST measured it and verified it, but here's another demonstration that you can follow along and check for yourself:

www.studyof911.com...

Measured average acceleration of WTC7: 8.71m/s^2
Calculated theoretical maximum with drag taken into account: 8.94M/s^2
Free-fall in a vacuum: 9.81m/s^2


Then Frank Legge offers another analysis from a different vantage point:

www.journalof911studies.com...

Frank Legge's measurement: 9.06m/s^2


NIST actually gave the highest measurement, though they didn't calculate drag or anything else that would have played a role in the theoretical acceleration according to their theory:


NIST NCSTAR 1A at 45 states: [November 2008]

The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2 (9 .81 m/s2 ), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g.


www.the-peoples-forum.com...

NIST's measurement: 9.81m/s^2 for the first 2.25 seconds at least, which is equivalent to free-fall in a vacuum. The margin of error is at best big enough to cover drag that should have at least also been present.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by iamcpc
Bonez how can you be so sure that it was demolished when there are sources and evidence that say that it wasn't?

Because of years of tireless research. And that includes looking at both sides.



Please direct me to where you are finding evidence and expert testimony that is not refuted or contradicted with evidence and expert testimony?

Demolition expert A, B, C, D :

The squibs are from explosives.

Demolition expert E, F, G,H:

The squibs are from the collapse of the building and not explosives.


Your view:
Demolition experts A, b, c and d are correct.

My view:
Why do so many experts have different opinions about the squibs?


How can you accept one view after years and years of research while ignoring demolition experts E, F, G, and H?




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join