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.
Source: Dr. Jones' blog at 9/11 Blogger
"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."
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.
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.
* 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.
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.
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 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.
wtc.nist.gov...
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report (11/20/08)
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?
* About 70 professors from the physics, math, psychology, and engineering departments agreed with Dr. Jones' theories.
Originally posted by Six Sigma
Jones does NOT state this. He states that they think there should be an investigation.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.