< HOME  Thursday, February 09, 2006

911 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions by Steven Jones

From 911truthseekers:

BYU Physics Professor Steven E. Jones spoke at UVSC on February 1st. Did you see the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001? (We will take a close look at it.) No steel-frame skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11 and it was NOT hit by a jet--so what made this 47-story building collapse? And what of the large pools of molten metal beneath the rubble of WTC7 and both WTC Towers? What about the WTC dust--was it toxic and were people given false reassurances about it? We will consider these and other questions regarding September 11th. Be prepared to have some prevalent myths challenged. In preparation, please read this peer-reviewed paper on the subject: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


The video of this lecture is now up in torrent format which you can obtain:

http://www.mininova.org/tor/220650

http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3442438

"...How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000)...."


Update: MP3 version of Jones' lecture can be obtained as well:

http://www.911truthseekers.org/

31 Comments:

At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Apollonian said...

Yes brilliant--also see David Ray Griffin's Why Official Accounts CANNOT BE BELIEVED (do google search for easy link). This by Griffin is well written and fairly brief, about 11,000 words. Facts are stubborn things. Griffin cites the NYC firemen testimony who ALL confirm numerous, dozens, even hundreds of explosions of demolition-style.

Then there's the problem w. the "stand-down" of Air Force. Everything stinks.

Problem is everything's so critically built upon this one little teensy little lie--the Federal Reserve Bank counterfeiting fraud. Next, the old folks don't want to lose their ascendancy over the youth, who are effectively enslaved. The youth are kept stupid by various means. Only most gross, horrific disaster will end it all, the way it looks. The forest fire simply burns itself out....

But our hope is the Constantinian Christian revolution by which we rid ourselves of Judeo-"Sadduceans" and associated conspirators in accord with New Testament Conspiracy theory-analytic-template.

This new Christian revolution will be distinguished by means of most fervent and effective rationalism and absolute antisemitism, these two new things so alien for today's heretical status-quo. Apollonian

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

excellent, vper1! you're a mind reader!

:)

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Thanks Apollonian the serenely high-minded and noble!

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Apollonian said...

Yes, well I wish I was "serene." And I don't know about "noble," but I do endeavor HONESTY, eh? But then to go further, observe how everything is demonstrated, given my prior posting, above, to be built upon this lie, this counterfeiting fraud-scam. The point then is this lie is induced by means of SUBJECTIVISM, the rejection of the objective world. And if u ck Gosp. JOHN 8:44, u see who Christ identifies as the masters of this subjectivist mentality.

Besides, is there any doubt the greatest terrorists are Jews?--that people seriously and genuinely fear the Jews? Yes, the Jews must have their accomplices among the gentiles, the "Sadduceans" (of modern-day, such as Falwell, Robertson, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al.)

I fear the Jews, but my healthy rationalist hatred is what then fuels my will to speak out against them. So in that case such healthy hatred is actually good, a virtue.

No, I don't deny humanity is sinful by nature as we know, that warfare will be ever-erupting. But for right this very moment nuking Israel will be the very best thing we could possibly do, solving nearly all problems. And again, I don't deny history is cyclic, and we'll soon be back at war. But nuking Israel would surely solve all problems for a good while to come. Apollonian

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Okay, I actually visited the remains of the towers, located in Hangar 17 at the JFK Airport. I saw metal that was bent in half, twisted in a way that was scientifically inexplicable.

I believe that a nuclear reaction occured when the Towers went down. I believe that such a nuclear reaction enabled Tower 7 to fall.

I know that the sciene of 9/11 is being researched. I saw scientific preservation and research going on at Hangar 17 of the JFK Airport. As far as whether Bush orchestrated 9/11...I don't believe he did, and I think the science we know of at the moment shows it was very possible, without planted bombs, for Tower 7 to fall on its own. My own belief is that Bush engaged in willful blindness of what the hijackers were doing, and that he had at least a strong clue (assuming he has a brain) that this was going to happen...and did nothing. Very sad/scary. In terms of a media blackout on the issue, I would say it's Bush's ties to the Saudis and oil interests. I think the media in general doesn't want to believe that our "prez" could have any ties to the very terrorists he himself calls "evil," but the evidence just stares you in the face.

Oh, and Appy, you best be scared of the Jews. They could be any and everywhere. I am surprised you feel so comfortable posting on this forum, cute li'l bunny y'are. I mean, for all you know, zionist death squads are being sent right this second to kill you. Just sayin...

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Miss R thanks for your insight. There was some discussion on various forums I visit about a possible "mini-nuke" being used. No one is absolutely certain.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Byrne said...

"I think the science we know of at the moment shows it was very possible, without planted bombs, for Tower 7 to fall on its own

Miss R, You may be interested to know that, as far as I am aware, there is NO current peer reviewed (scientific) explanation of the collapse of WTC7, other than Professor Young's explanation.

NIST, who have been 'investigating' the only total collapse of 3 steel framed buildings in the world ever (WTC1, WTC2 & WTC7) have yet to provide even a DRAFT report (they have produced a Powerpoint show, published on 5th April 2005) on the WTC7 collapse.

On on 4th January 2006, NIST published, on their website, details of further WTC7 analysis that they wish undertaken (all subject to final NIST approval.

The NIST April 05 WTC7 hypothesis (which incidentally, expressly excludes any consideration at all of the possibility of controlled demolition)...may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed through the course of this study.

If the scientific explanation (sans controlled demolition) is so readily applicable - why the delay??

Thanks for covering this subject, vper1.

An excellent blog all round, folks.

 
At Thursday, February 09, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

Hey Byrne, thanks for the excellent and informative comment.

As usual, you enrich the conversation greatly with your input.

I am so convinced that WTC was a controlled demolition that at this point, proof is merely a formality. Given the circumstances, I think it's more reasonable for them to have to prove that it wasn't.

Visitors like you make it all worthwhile.

And again, outstanding post, vper1!

 
At Friday, February 10, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Miss R, at the end of the video presentation an inquirer points out WTC 6 apparently left a crater at ground zero. Supposedly it was blown some hundred or so feet into the air according to this man.

I will post something more comprehensive about this and the presentation tomorrow.

Cheers everyone.

 
At Friday, February 10, 2006, Anonymous S. King said...

Meanwhile....

While 9/11 conspiracists rehash debunked conspiracy theories, real scientists are demonstrating alternative explanations that people like Griffin are studiously avoiding:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/NISTREPORT.pdf


S. King
skyking@scientist.com

 
At Friday, February 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let the fear run you life, yesterday george bush stuck his foot in his mouth [again] when he said the so called terrorist were going to attack a sky scraper in the western part of the states in 2002. Is it not funny he would bring such a thing to the front 4 years later when all this crap with Iran is going on.

Looks like to me an invite to more domestic terrorism on his part to push for marshall law next month. We need an excuse to attack Iran, if the so called nuke issue is not going to work, a planned terrorist attack somewhere (again) on american soil would justify an attack for sure. (dont say i told you so)

 
At Friday, February 10, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

King, give me a break 911myths is complete disinformation coined up by some really stupid or COINTELPRO.

All you need is common sense.

 
At Friday, February 10, 2006, Anonymous Apollonian said...

To 8:11 AM "S.King"--hey, now u only have to demonstrate u actually know anything about "real science," eh?

(1) Note D.R. Griffin merely concludes fm the hard evidence which is absolutely IRREFUTABLE given in NYC firemen's testimony, out now since only Aug 05.

(2) That the gov. and Jews are capable of putting on phony websites with the usual lies has been plain for all time. Gov. and Jews control the Fed counterfeiting scam--they have the money to flood the public with disinfo.

(3) So, in conclusion, if u actually knew anything about anything, u'd know u need to present an argument with some verifiable premises rather than stupid shit which is what all ur material most likely is, comrade.

(4) Finally, to that pathetic and psychotically affected kike female who evidently (unfortunately) recovered fm her stupor of "ecstacy": hey yes, don't doubt we fear u kikes, why else would we hate u so healthily--like all humanity has always hated u vermin throughout history. Tell me, by all means, is this a kike website?

 
At Friday, February 10, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Apollonian the un-serenely high minded and noble to the rescue!

 
At Friday, February 10, 2006, Anonymous S. King said...

vper1 said...

"King, give me a break 911myths is complete disinformation coined up by some really stupid or COINTELPRO."

Sure.

Meanwhile the links are to papers by a Canadian scientist that scare Griffin, Jones et al.

You might trying reading them.

S. King
skyking@scientist.com

 
At Friday, February 10, 2006, Anonymous S. King said...

Apollonian said...

"(1) Note D.R. Griffin merely concludes fm the hard evidence which is absolutely IRREFUTABLE given in NYC firemen's testimony, out now since only Aug 05."

But that stuff was already refuted by other firemen long before Aug 05.

"2) That the gov. and Jews are capable of putting on phony websites with the usual lies has been plain for all time. Gov. and Jews control the Fed counterfeiting scam--they have the money to flood the public with disinfo."

9/11 Denial shares a lot with Holocaust denial.

"(3) So, in conclusion, if u actually knew anything about anything, u'd know u need to present an argument with some verifiable premises rather than stupid shit which is what all ur material most likely is, comrade."

hat's the common response of the 9/11 Denial Movement when confronted with evidence it finds frightenly inconvenient.

In the meantime, the papers I linked to remain unrefuted and scare the living daylights out of Griffin and Jones.

S. King
skyking@scientist.com

 
At Friday, February 10, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

King personally I've read enough, and I trust my own gut instinct on this one. 9/11 is not all that it seems and needs to be questioned.

Do you yourself take the official story at face value?

 
At Friday, February 10, 2006, Anonymous S. King said...

You know, the "offical story" canard has never worked. It is nothing more than a strawman to get around having to deal with the actual evidence of what happened on 9/11 and is the number one sign of the weakness of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

If you note above, I posted links to scientific papers by a Canadian sciencetist. His data, assumptions, calulations are out there in front of everyone, every scientist, every physicist, structural engineer, and forensic scientist to be challeneged, questioned, debunked or affirmed.

It has nothing to do with politics or Bush or government.

Quite unlike 9/11 conspiracists, even the new group, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", who, to date, only can make claims without providing the actual data and calculations.

Why not? Why can't they be as strightforward and transparent as Dr. Greening is? Shouldn't that make you a tad bit skeptical of what you are being told?

If one is only looking for feelings about Bush et al to be confirmed, then anything inconvenient to that conclusion will be rejected. But if we are interested in getting to the truth - wherever it may lead - then the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof must apply to everyone.

S. King
skyking@scientist.com

 
At Friday, February 10, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

King I fail to see how the 'official canard' is a weakness.

I'm in no position myself to challenge Dr. Greening; i'm a laymen. From what I have gathered on my own time, ie: this administration has benefited in a big way from 911, I can make my own conclusion.

If you want to explain why Dr. Jones, Dr. Griffin et al. are so 'afraid' please do so. It doesn't affect my conclusion.

 
At Friday, February 10, 2006, Anonymous S. King said...

vper1 wrote...

"King I fail to see how the 'official canard' is a weakness."

Because the "offical story" is in reality the evidence from thousands of different independent sources which the government never had control of to begin with.

"I'm in no position myself to challenge Dr. Greening; i'm a laymen."

But you're willing to accept the claims of a group of so-called "scholars" whose lack of transparency and expertise in the area of discussion - the physics of the collapses of the WTC towers - apparently gives them credibility???

Tell us why.

Whether the adminsistration benefited AFTER the events of 9/11 is a question that in no way can logically mean that Bush was the CAUSE of the events without evidence. Where's the evidence?

Jones et al have made the following claim on their website:

"Physics research establishes that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings."

What physics research? Where's the actual data? Shouldn't a physicist readily supply the basis for his claims? They've been asked repeatedly for it - ever since his paper came out several months ago.

Jones' own university and several BYU university departments called Jones on it. They were deeply affected. If you're conclusion is not affected, so be it. All I can suggest is that you ask yourself why.


S. King
skyking@scientist.com

 
At Friday, February 10, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Ok so what you're effectivley saying is the research done by Jones, Griffin et. al has holes in it. So be it, for now let us cast the collapse issue aside.

What about the war games NORAD was putting on during 9/11 ?

What about secretary Mineta's testimony regarding Cheney's statement?

What about the flight recorders?

Why wasn't the president whisked to saftey after reports of planes hitting the towers? Why did he continue to sit their looking dumbfounded? What's standard procedure? No danger to anyone I guess; no worries!

 
At Saturday, February 11, 2006, Anonymous S. King said...

vper1 said...

"What about..."

So, what about them?

 
At Saturday, February 11, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

S. King, that's a lame response.

If you want people to take the time out to examine your position, you must at least address the obvious concerns raised by the numerous signs of complicity by the administration.

 
At Saturday, February 11, 2006, Anonymous Mighty Racistman said...

Methinks "S.King" is merely playing w. u using obviously absurd, even comically so, counter-arguments. Evil "S.King" knows he has practically captive audience after the demented qrswave banned the recent leading light of this blog, the mighty Apollonian, so ruthlessly honest as scrupulously logical. A disgusted public now effectively boycotts. Tsk Tsk; perhaps u should consider repenting. Racistman

 
At Saturday, February 11, 2006, Anonymous Apollonian said...

Hey "S.King"--we know u're just playing around w. us like a cat with mouse. But u say some things which are outrageous, meaning not founded in any empirical data:

(a) Why would David Ray Griffin put out "Why Official Account CANNOT Be Believed"--when, as u allege and pretend, quite absurdly, the NYC firefighters testimony was already, beforehand, "refuted," as u put it? Hint: first u need the thesis, then any refutation is presented.

U seem to be hard of hearing: The NYC firefighters' testimony is absolutely definitive, and neither u nor anyone else even begins to challenge it, ur utterly unfounded, unreferenced assertion notwithstanding.

Do u give urself away when u cite holohoax fraud? Do u think u have any evidence in favor of holohoax? Holohoax is actually just religion to u, right?

And "Sky," do u really think anyone thinks u're really a scientist, as all u do is play cheap tricks with logic--all for the mere purpose of fooling urself?

But I do think u're genuinely funny. Take care. Apollonian

 
At Saturday, February 11, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Apollonian, thanks for your insight. I became aware of Sky King's games after doing a little poking around with google ;)

 
At Saturday, February 11, 2006, Anonymous S. King said...

qrswave said...

"If you want people to take the time out to examine your position, you must at least address the obvious concerns raised by the numerous signs of complicity by the administration."

First, you need to express what those concerns are, wouldn't you agree?

I asked what those concerns are. A poster asks "What about Norad? Well, what about it? What is the concern?

And I have posted four links that call into serious question Joners claims. Where have YOU addressed those?

 
At Saturday, February 11, 2006, Anonymous S. King said...

Apollonian said...

"Hey "S.King"--we know u're just playing around w. us like a cat with mouse."

Don't be so threatened, Apollonian. I am not the issue.

Clearly the issue is Dr. Greening's data that puts your preferred conspiracy theories in doubt, the theories that you feel for some reason are not subject to scientific scrutiny by those with no political ax to grind.

Let me repeat the links so you are others can debunk them:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/NISTREPORT.pdf

And before you get to upset let me point out that testimony from firemen about what happened existed available to all long before Griffin resorted to re-posting debunked data as if it were unaddressed.

That you would stick your foot in your mouth by declaring for all to see that, "The NYC firefighters' testimony is absolutely definitive, and neither u nor anyone else even begins to challenge it, ur utterly unfounded, unreferenced assertion notwithstanding," is quite indicative that you aren't inclined to do your own research. Particularly since it's been talked to death on the Internet for years.

Don't be so gullible and so easily fall for Griffin playing with the facts to suit his political goals. Don't let Griffin and Jones use you.

I am not a threat to you nor is the evidence. I learned a long time ago to spot snake oil salesmen and Griffin is one of them.

You can prove it to yourself.

 
At Saturday, February 11, 2006, Anonymous S. King said...

vper1 said...

"Apollonian, thanks for your insight. I became aware of Sky King's games after doing a little poking around with google".

Funny that you would consider getting to the truth and scientific papers "games."

I think that says FAR more about you than me.

 
At Sunday, February 12, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

King please elaborate on Jones/Griffin's political goals/agendas?

 
At Monday, April 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

someone calling themselves "skyking" is showing up at just about every site and board that links 911myths. At least just about every one that I could find on google. The name "skyking" is found over and over again on the web debunking 9/11 doubters. 911myths is surely a spook creation. For one the site is registered anonamously. It also references papers by "experts" that aren't found anywhere else on the web or peer reviewed or published elsewhere.

DISINFORMATION

 

Post a Comment

<< Home