Cliff LyonUtahPolicy Exposing Liberal Bias on College Campuses
LaVarr Webb’s UtahPolicy.com is easily the most complete one-stop source for all things of political interest in any medium, period. But nevertheless, the icing on that cake is distinctly home-made..
I quote UtahPolicy.com on Feb 21, 2006:
Steven E. Jones, a BYU physics professor who thinks the World Trade Center Building 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition and not a terrorist attack, is mildly mocked by conservative news site (Human Events).
I had to chuckle…. “Thinks #7 was destroyed by?â€
I was NOT NEWS to the rest of world that pedigreed scientists were disputing the government’s explanation of how the building came down. It WAS NEWS that a professor from BYU had chosen to invite certain ridicule for “speaking truth to power†in a place where the very act perfects one’s destiny without prejudice or consideration of merit…usually. (Hence the standing room only crowd at UVSC at a recent presentation of the paper.)
Not only did the building’s landlord SAY it was “pulled†on PBS, but any 5th-grader with a concept of small explosives can see from watching the video it was demolished, and not by fire.
I chuckled again when I discovered that (Human Events) is actually “Human U Events, a conservative weekly - Exposing Liberal Bias on College Campuses†and their top placed ad is a news feed from Novak and Ann Coulter.
Look, if anyone had told me 4 years ago that their were no WMD, the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill would pass at 4:30am in the morning and be a disaster and cost double, the CIA had foreign torture camps and the president was secretly wiretapping Americans without a warrant, or that the vice president would down a beer or two and shoot a lawyer in the face, or Scooter, or Abramoff, Delay, Brownie…I never would have believed them.
Regardless of your allegiance, one must admit that the very many who have assigned suspect character to this administration if not incompetence, have been more vindicated than the even most optimistic could have hoped for.
Is it really so impossible that FEMA’s explanation for the collapse of WTC-7 could be wrong? Heck, the 9-11 Commission Report doesn’t even mention WTC-7 at all, anywhere. But first, I should say, I too thought 9-11 alternative theories were insane, until I happen to watch a replay of this (David Ray Giffen) on CNN one night. And I thought to myself, “self, this guy is suggesting the unacceptable on CNN. This isn’t Inside Edition or Alfred Hitchcock.â€
So I did my own research, determined to prove not only the fallacious nature of the conspiracy theories, but also the magnitude of the conspiracy farce that was being thrust on the world. And even after developing serious doubts about the official explanation, my liberal Jewish civil engineer father cautioned me not to verbalize those doubts. And I ALWAYS take my father’s advice. He is always right.
But I did begin to survey others and the reaction I received, consistence across the political spectrum, was one of confident but uninformed dismissal, uniquely uncharacteristic of the kind of thoughtful, reasoned, fair-minded, and educated people I choose to ask.
I don’t know what happened on 9-11, but I do know there a many “omissions and distortions†that once glimpsed, force one to jerk around and stare uncontrollably as if at a scantily clad heavenly body at the beach.
Isn’t it time to at least ask our leaders to respect our intelligence?
To speak for the government, one only needs to promise to tell the truth. To teach at BYU, one must prove the truth under the most rigorous, unforgiving process conceivable. Shouldn’t we be giving a BYU professor, one of ours, with everything to lose, his due?
…Unless he’s crazy in which case I would think he would be silenced if not fired. Hmmm. That kind’a smells suspicious too?
Who among us has risked so much for personal conviction?
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:24 am
Hey, come on now, this is heavy stuff.
As you begin to think about it, this predictable initial denial is not for fear of being called paranoid, but rather because entertaining the possibility requires accepting something so horrific that the fact of it would imply a barbarity so egregious, that every American, to a person, regardless of political association, would have to accept a level of shame, humiliation, and responsibility that is unfathomable.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:28 am
To dismiss the possibility, in light of the evidence, without any self-initiated research, because the very act of “looking into it” is so self-effacing, speaks well for one’s integrity. It is forgivably admirable to insist that no matter how deplorable the behavior of our government might be, that the murder of our own citizens, on our own soil, for the purpose of galvanizing public acceptance of a war, is simply impossible.
So don’t bother or you may find yourself out on the streets if not locked up gitt’n “3-squars”.
I’m surprised you on’t just blow it off like Golden.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:59 am
Hey the Depleted Uranium story is out, the Emergency personel are dying from cancer that worked around the demolished towers, as is anyone that hung around the site.
The people who have done this are NOT HUMAN! AND THEY WEREN”T ARABS!
The buildings were clearly demolished with explosives. larry silverstien, human slime, even admitted that Trade building #7 was pulled. The building suffered spot fires and no structural damage, and had no airplanes crashed into it. How is it that it was blown up and demolished? The explosives had to be in the building BEFORE the planes crashed into the the towers. If you believe Andreas Von Bulow, former German Defense Minister, the planes weren’t crashed they were flown into the towers by remote control.
We are 30th in the modern world in math and science, it is small wonder Americans cannot understand that the “official government conspiracy theory” is a FAIRY TALE! People this stupid are not necessarily deserving what they get, but they get what’s coming.
A little less perversity(diversity) training, and a lot more of 3 R’s in school and we might have known what the hell really happened to us on that day. As it is time is about run out. How stupid do you have to be Muricah? Stupid is, as stupid does. g
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:16 am
Oh BTW Cliff, as for who would have believed that it has all come to this? If you recall, I did. As you well know.
bush is a crown TORY! Their forte is theft under the guise of leadershit. The bush family has it’s roots in the boston brahmin bastids that were the kings men in boston before our revolution.
Our current leaders are simple criminals with the crown of criminals against humanity with the DU revelations. God Help US, we are in so much trouble. I’m a born German, you better hope the military is as good as the billions we have all been sacked for.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:20 am
C’mon Cliff, “the owner” of #7 Trade building? Larry Silverslime, SAY IT! SAYANIM SCUM that he is! He is at least a criminal, and then next, a traitor. BTW he and the rest of hius hoodlums now own the Sears Tower in Chicago. Bought it from a Canadian holding company, primary tenant, CHUBB insurance, owned mostly by the queen of fangland(england)
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:52 am
I think aliens from outer space were responsible.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:06 am
Ethan you sound like an abductee. You must be part of that 3oth place standing that I refered to with regard to US edumacashun. g
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:46 am
H Dean is correct - it is simply unfathomable to think, imagine, contemplate or otherwise entertain the possibility that #7 was brought down intentionally by explosives … or is it? The video showing the collapse of #7 leaves an indelible and unmistakable impression on the minds of those of any political persuasion - or at least those having the capacity to be open minded, if only briefly - that the building was brought down by explosives. It is virtually impossible to watch the video and walk away feeling otherwise!
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:06 am
Unthinkable?
A short review of world history in the last 100 years, lasting little more than an hour or two, if done honestly and as objectively as possible… would make it at least thinkable, wouldn’t you think?
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:24 am
There are better resources online than conspiracy sites. For a reasonable look into the Building 7 collapse and conspiracy, check out Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#World_Trade_Center_Seven
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:11 am
What “conspiracy sites” do you refer, Ethan? By the way, I notice that the Wikipedia site certainly does not dismiss the theory that #7 was brought down by explosives but, rather, leaves open the possibility that such is exactly what occurred.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:32 am
nbsp;wtc7.net linked in the post is one example of a conspiracy site.
A conspiracy of the scope discussed here would involve a cast of thousands. You have to prep a building for demolition, not only difficult by itself, but you have to do it so no one notices. That is a 50 story building full of tenents and security! Now add in the other buildings and the scope of just that is utterly ridiculous. It would require multiple participants at every level of government including the local police and building security guards and the fire fighter volunteers from aroud the country who helped clear the debris. Then add on top of it the active conspiracy to cover up the truth.
I don’t believe it because it would require too many people. Simple.
Beyond that, these conspiracy theories are convenient only when viewed through a very small lense. Put them into the larger context, and they fold. No one has explained why such a plan would be necessary. A terrorist attack on an elementary school would have sent us to war just as quickly. Surely the CIA could have put that together over a long weekend.
Why such a complicated plan with so many variables involving so many people. The best conspiracies involve the fewest number of people.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:57 am
I see. So Ethan is apparently more comfortable with the much more contained neocon conspiracy to drag America into a full-blown conflict in the middle east to force democracy down the throats of countries like Syria, Iraq and Iran. That conspiracy appears acceptable in that it included only the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and possibly a few others. With a bumbling idiot yes-man at the helm like W, who does what he is told when he is told, how could the conspiracy fail?
Stranger things have happened, my friend!
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Who says Ethan? Cast of thousands, fool a country of millions. Germany comes to mind as an arrogant modern people that were bamboozled to their sorry end.
My own knowledge of the Towers before their fall was that they were very empty…of tenants, accounting for the remarkably low fatality rate of less than 3000.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:10 pm
I’m just telling you why I don’t believe it.
Too many people involved.
Conspiracies theories rarely pan out because they rely on small bits of evidence taken out of context that can be blamed on “them”.
That’s all I’m reading here. Nothing new.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Fascinating post. Made me wonder if Prof Jones might have got it right after all?
But I was intrigued more by this one liner from the post: “To teach at BYU, one must prove the truth under the most rigorous, unforgiving process conceivable.”
That’s a statement that probably has an interesting and enlightening expansion. What process do you have in mind there?
Mike.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Ask David Sokal how “rigorous” academia really is.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Mike - You’re right that statement, ““To teach at BYU, one must prove the truth under the most rigorous, unforgiving process conceivable.†does require clarification.
Coming from a family of professors I’m probably especially sensitive to expectation and pressure to publish, publish, publish, and the politics of peer review.
In the case of the sciences, you need to get your stuff peer reviewed. Rigorous may be the wrong word, but there are certainly many hurdles and big potential pitfalls for what many consider minutiae.
As BYU has always been looked down upon for their perceived lack of academic freedom by the Ivy league crowd, I think they have worked extra hard to employ otherwise highly pedigreed professors.
All that hurriedly said, I guess I am trying to say Steve Jones paper will be held up to the bright light scrutiny, while the gov’t engineering studies have been laughed at in terms of peer reviewability.
Thanks for keeping me honest.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Ethan - I was singing the same tune “Too many people involved” until I really dug in and did the work. I no longer believe that is a relevant response for the fact that we don’t have good sensible answers to so many questions.
I believe the term “conspiracy theory” is used too broadly here, and basically inappropriate.
What part of it would be a conspiracy anyway? Did you listen to the Griffen talk I posted?
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Cliff,
Thanks for the thoughtful clarification. You write well when you are rushed. Thanks for a well-thought out and well-written blog. I don’t always agree with what’s written here but it almost always makes me thing more deeply about the issues and that’s why I keep coming back.
I’d like to see Dr. Jones’ work get a thourough peer review before I make any judgements about it. The subject of the paper isn’t something I know well. I don’t think that such a review has happened yet. His paper was, apparently, going to appear in “Research in Political Economy” which is a journal for classical Marxism applied to social issues. But the table of contents for the forthcoming issue on 9/11 doesn’t list his paper. When the DesNews ran the story, and last time I read Dr. Jones’ webpage, it was going to appear there. At any rate, a journal on classical Marxist thought might not be the best place to get a good review on structural physics or engineering. I would guess that his paper is under review somewhere else and he can’t say anything about it until the results come out.
And, in the interest of full, but belated (sorry), disclosure, I should add that I myself and a young new professor at BYU in the very same college as the other Dr. Jones. So I am familiar with the pressure and processes you described. In my view, you’ve pretty much nailed how things feel academically at BYU to me.
That said, my opinions and comments are entirely my own and do not represent those of my employer (other standard disclaimers here). I don’t think I’ve ever met Dr. Jones. He’s got tenure in what I think is a legitimate department, so he does good work in general. My spelling is so bad that I don’t like to admit that I am a professor unless I think there’s a compelling reason, forunately I live in the age of spell checkers.
Mike.
February 24th, 2006 at 7:25 am
You mean somebody’s actually looking at the evidence?
February 24th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Ethan, you remind me of the police officer at a murder scene that directs people away from the tattered body and giant pool of blood, that over and over repeats the mantra to the hushed and stunned milling crowd, “Move along people, there’s nothing to see here.”
Just a question. If you don’t believe in this conspiracy of many that originated somewhere in the world OTHER than hidden caves in the poorest country on earth(afghanistan) I am simply amazed that an official government conspiracy story
(FAIRY TALE) of what must have been hundreds if not thousands of people, pulled off that stunt with box cutters and our own commercial aircraft. Yah right!
Now we can’t find the people responsible, and are warring on a people, which by all evidence, had nothing to do with the event.
E
February 24th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Look, when your conspiracy shows some real evidence, then I’ll look at it. Up until now, all I’ve seen is small things taken out of context.
Trust me, I’ve read through as many 9/11 conspiracies as I could find. Not one offered any real evidence.
Laugh at my position all you want, but if you want to talk more about it, bring real shit. I mean REAL shit. Not innuendo, not fuzzy pictures, the real shit.
February 24th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Ethan – Both Glenn and H Dean describe your position well. You are certainly not alone and there is no shame in it.
But to ask for more evidence is sort of like the Sheriff of Wetumpka Alabama asking for evidence of racism in 1959.
I don’t believe anyone can provide you with more reason to ask for some answers than you already have at your fingertips.
As H Dean said, “…entertaining the possibility requires accepting something so horrific that the fact of it would imply a barbarity so egregious, that every American, to a person, regardless of political association, would have to accept a level of shame, humiliation, and responsibility that is unfathomable.â€
I think the question is, could you handle it if it were true? I don’t think I could. Taking it a step further, if the President himself went on TV and said Cheney did it and hence the blank stare when I heard about it, I think I would still look for reasons not to believe it.
It’s just too hard.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
When Ethan says real evidence, I think he means just that, real evidence, like the real evidence concerning intelligent design that is so abundant here in Utah. So come on, Cliff, get some real evidence, and Ethan might then be convinced.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
For me, the argument isn’t about whether we WOULD commmit such a crime as planning and executing 9/11 for political reasons. I don’t believe there is a mysterious morality that shields us from those kinds of ambitions. Whether Pres. Bush is the kind of person who would conspire to kill people on 9/11 is irrelevent.
Popular Mechanics had a great issue covering the conspiracies. I recommend it.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
February 24th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
One matter I think we can all agree upon is that if such a conspiracy occurred, Bush was far from being a necessary co-conspirator. Indeed, Bush’s capacity for sleeping on the job may very well have been a key and neccesary component to the puzzle, without which the conspiracy could not have occurred.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Ah the Popular Mechanics article. Ethan, you betray your bias.
One need only google popular mechanics debunked
Ethan - DO THE WORK!
February 24th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
What bias? That I think the conspiracies are crap? You caught me!
February 24th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Ethan - Shouldn’t one’s desire for objective truth outweigh one’s desire to be right?
Your decision to offer up a thoroughly proven-to-be-administration-inspired-propagande (popular mechanics article) suggests:
A. You were not aware that that article has been debunked because you have NOT done the work (but prefer instead to spend your energy trying to convince everybody your are right)…or
B. You WERE aware of the article’s disengenuous origin and thought you could fool us.
Which one? Who are the fools here?
February 24th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
I hope this works:
I present this a convenience for those with a genuine interest in becoming more informed on the subject, but have little time. It is not my work.
There are several lines of evidence indicating that the Bush Administration had more knowledge of 9-11 than they have represented thus far.
Initially, the Secret Service acted in a manner contrary to all standard training and procedures on 9-11, which indicates that Bush and his handlers knew they were not in danger at the Booker Elementary School.
Indeed, former high-level U.S. and allied government officials have recently and publicly stated that the 9/11 attack was not as it seemed:
For example:
Statement by former CIA briefer to the president
Summary of Statement by former high-ranking Bush official
Statement
Statement by former high-ranking Reagan official
MI5 Agent’s Statement
Statement by former German Minister of Defense
In addition, firefighters, rescue workers and other extremely credible witnesses have discredited the Administration’s version of 9/11:
NY Fire Department Chief of Safety
New York City firefighters who witnessed attacks
Indeed, Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, said in a PBS documentary that Building 7 was "pulled" on September 11th. "Pulling" is a construction industry term for "intentionally demolishing", as shown in this PBS interview discussing the demolition of world trade center building 6 many weeks after 9/11.
Other evidence of demolition comes from a 9/11 hero, last man out of the north tower and from a 9/11 rescue worker.
There are numerous other sources of confirmation but, like many issues touched on by this post, they would interfere with the brevity of this article.
Another line of proof of complicity is the 5 war games, including one "live fly exercise", which occurred on the morning of 9/11. See, for example, the Toronto Star article of December 9, 2001 reprinted here, or search for the original here. Indeed, on September 11th, the CIA was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building.
Interestingly, Vice President Cheney was apparently in charge of ALL of the war games and ALL counter-terrorism efforts on and in the months leading up to 9/11. See summary of "Crossing the Rubicon", by a former LAPD investigator .
Moreover, it flies in the face of common sense to imagine that 19 terrorists could evade the air force of the world’s mightiest air power, as hinted at by this statement by the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, and that they could penetrate the most heavily guarded building in the world, the Pentagon.
Well, you might say "Yeah, but the 9/11 Commission investigated all that and concluded that it was only Osama Bin Laden and his terrorists". Well, a very well-documented book by a distinguished professor shows that it was a whitewash. According to Richard Falk, an International Law and Practice at Princeton, the author of this book "establishes himself, alongside Seymour Hersh, as America’s number one bearer of unpleasant, yet necessary, public truths."
And the leading firefighters’ trade publication on the investigative "farce" concerning the world trade center collapse.
And the underfunded government agency tasked with examining at the collapse of the World Trade Centers did NOT investigate any anomalies as shown by the question and answer exchange at a recent government press conference skip to 1 minute and 23 seconds into the video.
And the tapes of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 were intentionally destroyed. as shown by an article from the Chicago Sun-Times
Please remember in this regard that official, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960’s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed to blow up American commercial airplanes, by switching real planes with other vehicles and to blame it on the Cubans, in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. ABC news report Official documents
Indeed, if we do not learn our history, we are doomed to repeat it. See Los Angeles Times Article, article on the Reichstag fire, and article on the perennial ploy of those grabbing power
February 24th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Lynette provides all the information I need to be convinced. I say, let’s round up the bums - Bush included - and send them to Bagdad. I am told that the Iraqis have methods for stewing people in their own juices, which is a befitting end for these folks who have caused and continue to cause the world so much misery.
February 24th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
[...] http://oneutah.org/2006/02/23/ [...]
February 24th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Wow! I don’t know where to begin, other than to say I like the idea posed by Vt Beer.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
I like Vt Drinkers idea as well.
Bush could use a little reality experience, given his sheltered past. Like not having ever travelled overseas until he had to for some political deal?
Having never had to look for a job.
Have you seen his real resume? He couldn’t qualify to teach junior high school social studies and yet…
Why did we did we vote for him again?
February 24th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Sorry, but I was really betrayed by the X- Files. I can’t go in on your conspiracy. I’ve sworn off conspiracy theories.
February 25th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Thie conspiracy theory is 11 hijackers with box cutters took down 3 major buildings in manhattan.
Are you aware that some of the eleven are proven to be alive and well?
Don’t ask me to do the work for you either. You appear to be the only one on this board who can’t seem to come up with any good information.
February 25th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Good information like the 9/11 report? The same report that was used to crack Senator Hatch over the head last week?
My position is clear and well documented. On 9/11 some men hijacked planes, flew them into buildings, and then we went to war.
February 25th, 2006 at 11:37 am
I’m heartened that at least no one has advanced the noxious moronicism that “4,000 Jewish employees were warned ahead of the attack to stay home.”
March 8th, 2006 at 8:59 am
You wrote…
“Isn’t it time to at least ask our leaders to respect our intelligence?
“To speak for the government, one only needs to promise to tell the truth. To teach at BYU, one must prove the truth under the most rigorous, unforgiving process conceivable. Shouldn’t we be giving a BYU professor, one of ours, with everything to lose, his due?”
There are some of us who think the same question should actually be asked of Prof. Jones and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. In fact, many have asked the group to substantiate their claims with some real science - severly lacking in Jones’s papers and the reason BYU and his own department called him on the carpet.
There are objections to Jones’s thesis, particularly as it applies to the collapses of WTC 1 & 2. Most noteworthy are the papers of Candian Scientist, Dr. Frank Greening, who demonstrates that the collapses without the need to introduce “controlled demolition” are perfectly plausible. Jones has decided to only address one of the papers, one that introduces a theory for possibility of Thermite type explosions in WTC 1 & 2. Jones, however, is avoiding addressing the physics in the other papers, one that he will ultimately have to deal with to be taken seriously.
Dr Greening’s papers are available here:
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
http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf
I have to chuckle when I see statements like yours above:
“Not only did the building’s landlord SAY it was “pulled†on PBS, but any 5th-grader with a concept of small explosives can see from watching the video it was demolished, and not by fire.”
It is just this kind of non-science and taking words out of context that Jones et al count on to attract true believers to the cause. You should question your own assumptions behind such assertions and ask why there is so little science revealed in Jones’s papers and in what is posted on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website to support ttheir assertions.
S. King
skyking@scientist.com
March 8th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
S. King,
Thanks for posting and, especially, for reviving and old post on a subject that always generates great discussion. Your argument is, however, fundamentally flawed and the evidence you bring to bear is subject to question. A few points in response:
Go back and review the top post. The top post presents an assertion - WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled fashion by demolition. The assertion is backed up by pedigreed scientists from a variety of institutions, such as MIT, and their analyses are afforded at least a baseline modicum of veracity by the substantial peer review to which many of these references were subjected. I see no peer review associated with any of the references you provide, which calls into question the reliability of your evidence.
More importantly, your argument misses the point. The top post argues that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives. Your post, on the other hand, argues the cause of collapse for WTC 1 and 2. How are these events tied together? Your argument begs the question, but fails to even suggest an answer. Your argument is, therefore, fatally flawed insofar as a response to the top post is concerned.
Good luck finding any good science suggests WTC 7 came down any other way. Therein lies the obvious, not to mention the small exposions visible on the video that preceed the collpase and resemble perfectly, professional demolition.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:52 am
Thanks for writing. You have , however, missed the point. I wrote:
“There are some of us who think the same question should actually be asked of Prof. Jones and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. In fact, many have asked the group to substantiate their claims with some real science - severly lacking in Jones’s papers and the reason BYU and his own department called him on the carpet.
“There are objections to Jones’s thesis, particularly as it applies to the collapses of WTC 1 & 2. ”
These objections exist based on Prof. Jones failure to address scientific challenges that both WTC 1 & 2 could have easily collapsed without the need to introduce “controlled demolitions.” Dr. Greening, in his papers chaellenging Prof. Jones on the subject,
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf and
http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
has made his assumptions, data, calculations, assumptions and methodology fully available for challenges, refutation, or affirmation by anyone. On the other hand, Prof. Jones has so far failed to address those papers despite being asked to do so. We have the right, if not the obligation, to challenge Prof. Jones and his group to forthrightly address challenges to his claims.
You would agree, I assume, that Prof. Jones has every obligation to do so and should support calls that he do just that.
The case of WTC 7 is anything but conclusive also. For one, we do not even have the final report of NIST to analyze, and all of us suffer from that lack of ALL the data. That WTC 7 fell down “symetrically” is not unexpected from the type of construction; it is not surprising in WTC 1 and 2. Even Jones is forced to use two pictures of collapsed buildings of an entirely different construction in his paper, http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html, to try to make his case. The puffs of smoke are also subject to question since they neither have the characteristics in and of themselves of those caused by demolition explosives, and they occur when the internal collpase of the structure was already well underway.
Prof. Jones and his group of scholars - a hodegpod of debunked 9/11 conspiracists - known officially as members of the 9/11 Denial Movement - and “scholars” with no qualifications in the subjects of physics, chemistry, structural engineering, or forensic scientists; truly bizarre statements form wholly unqualified but entirely politically motivated people like David Ray Griffin (”WTC demolition is truth inviolate, entirely separate from airliner crashes, proven beyond reasonable doubt and newly supported by a BYU physicist who calls for a serious investigation. It’s the linchpin establishing that selected parts of the U.S. government, aided by certain outsiders, committed the crimes of 9/11.” http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes.), all combine to raise serious and legitimate questions about the credibility and motives of Prof. Jones and his group.
I wager that Prof. Jones has long-since decided he can get a new “investigation” far easier by the support of those who are willing to suspend judgement than by backing up his assertions with actual science.
He faces scientific objections he is unwilling to address and is unlikely, at this stage, to get any kind of new investigation without compelling scientific evidence. Even if he should get as far as having hearings in Congress to determine if a new investigation is warranted, the hard questionning of him will follow. Right now, that means his underbelly is exposed to hard scientific challenge.
I again refer you to your own statement, “Not only did the building’s landlord SAY it was “pulled†on PBS, but any 5th-grader with a concept of small explosives can see from watching the video it was demolished, and not by fire.†By your own admission, you are suggesting that no scientific investigation is even necessary - it is entirely clear to you that the building was demolished because of a misconstrued meaning of Silverstein’s statement and a video.
So, if you should change your mind about that, good luck in finding any good science that supports the assertions that the WTC towers came down by explosive demolitions.
March 9th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Well then, let’s get on with it Mr. King, all out in the open, the fact that it has not been open, and is not now, speaks volumes, and you need a “social” background to understand that.
Let the Science begin! First question, let’s examine the evidence! Oops, can’t! It is currently being pounded into tin pots in Asia. How convienient.
March 10th, 2006 at 5:24 am
Sorry, Glenn, I’m not into strawman arguments.
Prof. Jones need not go to Asia to respond to these physics calculations showing WTC 1 & 2 could collapse without the need to introduce “controlled demolitions” into the equation:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
He and his “scholars” can respond from the comfort of home right on their website.
S. King
skyking@scientist.com
March 10th, 2006 at 7:33 am
My point is, at this late date the physical evidence, the buildings themselves, and the pieces that may have held evidence of demolition, are long gone. g