99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

reply to post by Darkwing01


Is BYU a hate group? They do not stand by the paper and when you are a professor and your own school does not stand behind you I would say something is amiss, as a best practice.

In fact, here is a letter from a 'peer' or 'colleague', something real scientists use for approval of theory.

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 I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report.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

Here are a few of the other character attacks you described...

"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" "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." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

www.et.byu.edu.../vita.php

and this one...

"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.

www-mae.ucsd.edu...

or these...

"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"

www.asce.org...

"Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D. in Physics

infohost.nmt.edu...

www.popularmechanics.com...

Industry professionals, not bloggers with an attitude or a grudge. Bottom line is not only is Jones paper fodder for the fireplace but he is also, in my opinion, not working for the truthers but working to give them evidence to believe in to keep the from looking at the real conspiracy on 9/11 which is 93. Did you know Jones was a Bush supporter? He got in some legal issues and...read the history of folks before you blindly follow not them but the discipiles who preach their wares.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You be the judge...

reply to post by esdad71

Industry professionals, not bloggers with an attitude or a grudge.

This may shock you esdad, but University professors and Nobel prize winners are sometimes (nay often) wrong too.

The trick is to see if there is any empirical evidence to support the views of said luminaries. There is none, so they are no more qualified than any layman. they are just saying what they hope to be true.

Reality is reality is reality.

reply to post by Darkwing01


So in that study they put a blowtorch on small explosives samples and found pieces that were both partly reacted and partly unreacted? I don't think so.

reply to post by Darkwing01


and he has no evidence. None. If he did, why not take it to MIT...Cal-Tech...etc...and have them review it? Why keep it a secret. Because if the truth is revealed there is no more mystery.

I cannot believe that the beliefs of you and your brood of Truthers hang on a paint chip and some dust. If you had det cord or a cap, then I could believe you. Remember, what was used to initiated the thermitic reaction. Why is there no evidence of this?

Also, are you truly stating that the post I presented are incorrect? I do not want a blanket statement asking me how many people are liars or wrong. Ask Mr Hawking...even he can be incorrect.

However, use some conviction and show where the posts I presented are incorrect?

Originally posted by -PLB-
English is not my 1st language.

OK, fair enough, disregard my comment if that is the case.

The only way you can confidently state this is if you have spoken to and surveyed ALL truthers.

Have You????

Otherwise you are merely stating an assumption. Assumptions are not fact.

It may be an assumption, but not a baseless one. I base it on the lack of posts from truthers who call out for independent experiments. In fact, most seem to be completely satisfied already.

I don't think I can agree with you there, you are basing an opinion on an absence of evidence.

That's like saying back in the 1st Century CE that the Earth must be flat because there is no evidence it is round.

reply to post by -PLB-

So in that study they put a blowtorch on small explosives samples and found pieces that were both partly reacted and partly unreacted? I don't think so.

What the study says is that if you were to do that there would be. That is what the study says. Read it again. The smaller the volume of the substance in relation to its surface area the more unreacted residue. It is not a hard concept.

A small flat nano-scale chip has an ENORMOUS surface area in relation to volume.

You have to hold the sample somehow, so part of it is in a clamp, easily enough to deflect the heat generated from the rest of the chip.

Go read the section on properties of explosive materials in the wikipedia article on explosives en.wikipedia.org... There is nothing in there that should not be blindingly obvious, but clearly you have some very strange ideas about these things.

Why keep it a secret.

He is not keeping it secret, he published a paper and gave speeches about it, gave samples to third parties independent enough to disagree with his findings even though they messed up the experiment.

He obviously has only so many samples and he can't just send it out in bulk to everyone and their cousin, so he is asking that the people who SHOULD HAVE more samples to open a properly constituted inquiry, like the should have to begin with, to test their own.

Why do OS'ers NOT want such an inquiry? What do THEY want to keep secret?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
What the study says is that if you were to do that there would be. That is what the study says.

Can you quote where the study says that? Or is that something you made up?

reply to post by -PLB-

The proportion of explosives residue will decrease as both the charge size and the velocity of detonation increase.

This is a small portion (indeed it meets the criteria for being called nano-scale) of highly energetic, low detonation velocity material.

You do the math.

reply to post by Darkwing01


It doesn't say that was put under a blowtorch. It also doesn't say that pieces of residue contained both reacted and unreacted material. Weren't you the one who required experimentation before you accept something? Why are you making an exception here?

reply to post by -PLB-

It doesn't say that was put under a blowtorch. It also doesn't say that pieces of residue contained both reacted and unreacted material. Weren't you the one who required experimentation before you accept something? Why are you making an exception here?

Seriously PLB, I don't know what your game is but you aren't fooling anyone with this complete garbage.

If it was done in the Western hemisphere you would complain about an experiment in the East.

What are you talking about "pieces" for? The paper makes no distinction so you are, once again, making stuff up. It doesn't say "only if the only source of heat was the reaction itself", because many secondary explosives require a primary ignition source.

You are literally pulling stuff right out your rear end, you have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for claiming that a piece of thermite of this kind will completely react. YOU JUST CONJURED IT FROM YOUR CRAZED IMAGINATION.

If you want to claim that it should in the face of experimentally (not to mention common sense) supported peer reviewed literature then it is YOU who needs to go do the experiment to show that your ideas have any basis in reality AT ALL.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
I don't think I can agree with you there, you are basing an opinion on an absence of evidence.

That's like saying back in the 1st Century CE that the Earth must be flat because there is no evidence it is round.

I disagree. I also believe fairies do not exist, because I have never seen evidence of their existence. But its not just absence of evidence I base my opinion on, I regularly see truthers say that Jones work is good enough on this forum, never seen the opposite really. I have also never seen an initiative that demands independent experiments from Jones, something I find very odd, as that would really put the truth movement on the map (if Jones is right).

reply to post by -PLB-

I have also never seen an initiative that demands independent experiments from Jones, something I find very odd, as that would really put the truth movement on the map (if Jones is right).

Again, this is sheer insanity. The truth movement is dedicated to asking for A NEW INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.

That's what it is PLB.

YOU sir are fighting tooth and nail against the thing you accuse Jones of avoiding.

[Aside: Also, the whole one piece thing is really a bridge too far even for you PLB, do you not know what plastic explosives is? That study makes no exception for C4, which would have been an incredibly obvious material to study. RDX also comes in castable forms].

reply to post by Darkwing01


So you think that putting a blowtorch (a constant igniter) on the material has no influence on the experiment whatsoever. And you think that finding pieces that are both partly reacted and parley unreacted isn't odd. Well, I do. This doesn't look like the dangerous stuff Jones claims it to be at all.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Again, this is sheer insanity. The truth movement is dedicated to asking for A NEW INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.

That's what it is PLB.

YOU sir are fighting tooth and nail against the thing you accuse Jones of avoiding.

[Aside: Also, the whole one piece thing is really a bridge too far even for you PLB, do you not know what plastic explosives is? That study makes no exception for C4, which would have been an incredibly obvious material to study. RDX also comes in castable forms].

What is it with truthers and reading. You are the second person to make this kind of remark. What do you think "from Jones" means? Did you miss it?

Besides, the dedication of the truth movement isn't that great. I already proposed that when every truther donated 5 dollar, you would have several hundred million dollars to do an investigation. What exactly are you waiting for? Approval from the government?

Originally posted by -PLB-
I have also never seen an initiative that demands independent experiments from Jones, something I find very odd, as that would really put the truth movement on the map (if Jones is right).

The academic method is that other academics test Jones' findings by repeating his experiments independently and seeing if they can duplicate the results. The problem is these other academics won't touch this with a ten foot klown pole because they don't want to be vilified and ostracised like he is.

The apathy is not on his part, it is everybody elses.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I already proposed that when every truther donated 5 dollar, you would have several hundred million dollars to do an investigation.

Isn't that what the truthers have been doing for the last 10 years????

Their own independent investigations, particularly the Architects and Engineers 9/11 movement.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
The academic method is that other academics test Jones' findings by repeating his experiments independently and seeing if they can duplicate the results. The problem is these other academics won't touch this with a ten foot klown pole because they don't want to be vilified and ostracised like he is.

The apathy is not on his part, it is everybody elses.

The work first has to be taken seriously, which it isn't. But "the academic method" is a weak excuse in my opinion. Forget the "academic method", Jones should do any experiment requested in a case as important as this. I can only think of only one reason why he would not.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
Isn't that what the truthers have been doing for the last 10 years????

Their own independent investigations, particularly the Architects and Engineers 9/11 movement.

I guess my definition of independent and investigation is different. As far as I know Architects and Engineers 9/11 do not even have a hypothesis, except that it was an inside job and somehow explosives or thermite were used.

Originally posted by -PLB-
The work first has to be taken seriously, which it isn't.

Only by OS believers on the internet

Forget the "academic method",

So you are actually saying we should abandon the scientific method??????

C'mon SLB, all you are doing is damaging your own credibility here.

Jones should do any experiment requested in a case as important as this.

Academics are not performing monkeys. It is up to other academics to refute his findings using the same methods.

I guess my definition of independent and investigation is different.

And different to that of a dictionary as well.

As far as I know Architects and Engineers 9/11 do not even have a hypothesis, except that it was an inside job and somehow explosives or thermite were used.

Yes and they have the facts and data and expertise to back up what they say using the academic/scientific method.

Having said all that I don't necessarily believe the inside job theory, as far as I'm concerned the evidence I've seen leads me to no definitive conclusion so far.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown

So you are actually saying we should abandon the scientific method??????

No I am not, I am saying that "the academic method", as in waiting for a response, is not relevant for the question if Jones should do more experiments or not. If Jones want to convince the world, he has to do a hell of a better job. Instead he just convinces truthers, which were already convinced.

Academics are not performing monkeys. It is up to other academics to refute his findings using the same methods.

Jones is making the claims and he has the samples. With a couple of relatively easy experiments he can confirm of disprove many of his claims. But you think he has done enough work, and you think his free time is more important than getting the truth out? I am sorry but I do not understand this kind of attitude. If I were a truther and I believed Jones really proved thermite, it would be my priority number one to silence all the critics and come with the most compelling scientific evidence possible.

And different to that of a dictionary as well.

Yes and they have the facts and data and expertise to back up what they say using the academic/scientific method.

So you are saying that currently an independent investigation is going on? When can we expect a result that is anywhere near the NIST report?

Having said all that I don't necessarily believe the inside job theory, as far as I'm concerned the evidence I've seen leads me to no definitive conclusion so far.

So to you Jones work isn't conclusive either. I am not really sure why you defend it as if it is. But its good to see you are not dogmatic about the subject.

reply to post by -PLB-

What is it with truthers and reading. You are the second person to make this kind of remark. What do you think "from Jones" means? Did you miss it? Besides, the dedication of the truth movement isn't that great. I already proposed that when every truther donated 5 dollar, you would have several hundred million dollars to do an investigation. What exactly are you waiting for? Approval from the government?

Dear PLB.

Who was supposed to do an investigation and did not?
Who was supposed support their crazy ideas about what they think thermite is, how it behaves and how it reacts?

YOU GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jones did his tests, he published his results. You can go make thermite RIGHT NOW and see if it behaves this way, and it will.

There is nothing stopping you.

You are simply saying completely random things that would falsify Jones IF THEY WERE TRUE.

But PLB, please, they are not true, or you have absolutely failed to establish that they are even remotely close to true in anything like an experiment.

YOUR CLAIM. YOUR EXPERIMENT.

If you think that Jones is wrong and that thermite chips will react completely then please go ahead and do the experiment that proves this. Jones is not stopping you.

Forget the "academic method", Jones should do any experiment requested in a case as important as this.

What nonsense, why does he have to anything that you want him to do when you can't even demonstrate understanding of simple logical concepts like type token relationships and can't even read simple research data that completely invalidates your ideas.

Will you next demand that he does experiments to eliminate the the possibility that ancient Egyptians had reincarnated as beings from planet Zarchon and displacement ray'd some heavy barbells into top floors to facilitate the destruction?

Because that is about how reasonable you are being now.

There is no reason whatsoever to think that your objection have any validity unless you can do some experiments or SOMETHING to show that they have SOME CONNECTION to THIS physical reality that we live in right now, not the imaginary one you seem to inhabit.