| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 288
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: Prof. Steven Jones 'alternative theories' lecture |
 |
|
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10444865
| Quote: |
Ex-BYU prof on 9/11: It wasn't just planes
Steven E. Jones lectures on 'alternative theories' surrounding the attacks
By Ben Fulton
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 09/12/2008 01:35:36 AM MDT
OREM - For most of the American public, the dust has settled over how the World Trade Center fell Sept. 11.
But seven years later, former Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones remains perhaps the most famous proponent of "alternative theories" surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks.
Almost two years since BYU placed him on paid leave because of controversy about his claims that the WTC towers did not fall due to the collision of passenger jets alone, he's still studying dust samples gathered near ground zero.
The man can also pack a small lecture hall, as he did Wednesday afternoon during one of the weekly physics colloquiums sponsored by Utah Valley University's physics department.
"I'll see if I can prepare you all to be whistle-blowers," Jones told the hall of some 100 people who came to hear his presentation titled, "9/11/2001: Forbidden Questions, Explosive Answers."
Many in the crowd identified themselves as doubters of accepted explanations for why the WTC towers fell, but declined to be named. Others were not shy.
"He's really onto something," said Brett Smith, a 25-year-old UVU student of behavioral science producing a documentary film about Jones, which he will later submit to film festivals. "There's so much that doesn't add up."
Using a Power Point presentation, Jones argued that basic laws of physics matched with careful observation of the motion and circumstances of the towers' collapse point to a missing cause behind their fall. After his analysis of dust samples from the attack site, which he said show high concentrations of aluminum, sulfur and silicon, he believes explosive materials were placed at the underground base of both buildings.
Critics of Jones' theory have long pointed out the absence of any evidence that the tons of explosives needed to fell both towers had slipped past building security, and that seismic readings recorded throughout the attack show no record of ground-level explosions. Jones, however, said his dust analysis points toward evidence of an ultra-fine, composite form of highly explosive thermite that could have been painted onto the inside walls at the underground base of both buildings.
Jones said before the lecture that whoever painted the explosives onto WTC walls could have done so to initiate the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "But of course we don't know for sure until we identify the perpetrators," he said. "What I'm trying to identify is the science that might lead to a criminal investigation."
Although placed on paid leave from BYU in September 2007 pending a university review of his claims, Jones retired voluntarily before the review could begin.
Since then he's sold a few family properties to keep afloat financially, but said he will look for a new teaching position early next year. Whatever his new job, he said he will never abandon his research on the Sept. 11 attacks.
Jones recited a Book of Mormon verse from III Nephi as a parallel to those who might try to persuade him otherwise: "Lachoneus was a just man who could not be threatened by the demands and threatenings of Gadianton robber," Jones told the crowd.
The citation drew applause, but some left undecided.
"At the very best it made me think," said Cary Dortch, a 26-year-old physics major at UVU. "I found him a bit narrowly focused in his presentation, but he did well in at least picking apart some of the accepted arguments."
|
The first 3 comments to the article are somewhat abusive...
One of the argument against explosives: "how could they slip the explosives past security?" With WTC security being run by the Bush family then I think anything is possible...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:18 am Post subject: Re: Salt Like City News: Prof Jones lecture reported |
|
|
| scienceplease wrote: | | One of the argument against explosives: "how could they slip the explosives past security?" With WTC security being run by the Bush family then I think anything is possible... |
My guess is that an office removal company delivered everything in packing crates
_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: Re: Salt Like City News: Prof Jones lecture reported |
|
|
| QuitTheirClogs wrote: | | scienceplease wrote: | | One of the argument against explosives: "how could they slip the explosives past security?" With WTC security being run by the Bush family then I think anything is possible... |
My guess is that an office removal company delivered everything in packing crates |
Indeed. There was an article somewhere about the planes crashed into floors where Uninterruptable Power Supplies (ie batteries) were being stored for computer. The floors had to be especially strengthen to hold the weight. Apparently they were "never used". That sounds like a good cover to me. Plus provides the addition of a homing beacon, perhaps.
The spooky thing though, they were shipped in the previous year. Before Bush stole the election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An Interview with David Ray Griffin
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/34340.html
| Quote: | And perhaps this is a good time to respond explicitly to your apparent assumption that, to challenge the official conspiracy theory, one must have an alternative theory of equal specificity, with answers to all the questions that could conceivably be raised about it.
But this is not true.
Let's say that you were accused by the authorities of murdering Bill Jones. You would assume that, to get the case dismissed, all you and your lawyer had to do was to prove that you could not possibly have killed Jones.
But imagine that, after you had done so, the judge then declared: "Sorry, that's not good enough. You must also tell us who did kill Jones, how the murder was committed, and why."
You would surely consider that unreasonable.
By analogy, the 9/11 Truth Movement has provided abundant evidence that the 9/11 attacks could not have been carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists. We need not also specify exactly who did organize and carry out the attacks, all their motives, and why they handled each part of the operation and the cover-up as they did. |
_________________
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/
Last edited by acrobat74 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rowan Berkeley
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: How the explosives got in |
|
|
First of all, the theory about the batteries comes from Chris Bollyn, who I regard as thoroughly unreliable, though more often his writing is simply composed of strings of biographical irrelevancies about Israelis and other Jews who may in his view be somehow involved, than actual false claims like this one.
Second, I think that Gordon Ross's theory of how the explosives were put in place is good, at least for the core columns. He claims that all the locations for these could be reached from the lift (or 'elevator') shafts. However, this does leave the question of the charges on the corner columns, which I think he argued would have been needed about every 30 stories, as opposed to every 10 stories for the cores.
_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: Re: How the explosives got in |
|
|
| Rowan Berkeley wrote: | First of all, the theory about the batteries comes from Chris Bollyn, who I regard as thoroughly unreliable, though more often his writing is simply composed of strings of biographical irrelevancies about Israelis and other Jews who may in his view be somehow involved, than actual false claims like this one.
Second, I think that Gordon Ross's theory of how the explosives were put in place is good, at least for the core columns. He claims that all the locations for these could be reached from the lift (or 'elevator') shafts. However, this does leave the question of the charges on the corner columns, which I think he argued would have been needed about every 30 stories, as opposed to every 10 stories for the cores. |
I think a clue to this lies in the fact that the towers had so much vacant space. From Scott Forbes testimoney in Mysteries we know of at least one company being requested to move floors, and of hearing noises like heavy machinery being moved around on the floor he knew had just been vacated. William Rodriguez also attests to odd noises coming from floors he knew to be completley vacant during the events of the day.
We also have the "paint like chips" Jones has been investigating which appear to be infused with nano thermate - meaning the bulk of the destructive materials could have been applied by people who did not even know what it was they were applying.
Ultimatley, we may never know how or through which means they pulled this off, but ultimatley that is irrelevant. We know what didn't happen, and we can prove it.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rowan Berkeley
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject: paint like chips |
|
|
I don't agree with the idea that just because they seem "paint-like," these chips are actually flakes of paint, and that this suggests that "the bulk of the destructive materials could have been applied by people who did not even know what it was they were applying." This idea started with a rather en passant remark by Kevin Ryan in a recent essay at the Journal of 9-11 Research, and I don't agree with it at all. Demolition charges of this sort cannot possibly work by being "painted onto" the entire expanse of a steel beam. They have to be moulded so as to produce highly focused cutting effects, which is why they are called "shaped charges".
_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject: Re: How the explosives got in |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | Ultimatley, we may never know how or through which means they pulled this off, but ultimatley that is irrelevant. We know what didn't happen, and we can prove it. |
Eeeexactly.
Speculation is dangerous. Moreover, it sets the bar artificially high: we only need to prove that the official account is an unprovable lie, and we have done that.
We need not speculate about all the different aspects of the entire operation. A new investigation should figure the whole thing out.
As Dr. Griffin said:
| Quote: | | By analogy, the 9/11 Truth Movement has provided abundant evidence that the 9/11 attacks could not have been carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists. We need not also specify exactly who did organize and carry out the attacks, all their motives, and why they handled each part of the operation and the cover-up as they did. |
_________________
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would only add that it does us (as a movement) no harm whatsoever to make ourselves as aware as it's possible to be of the events of that day - one reason I support Steve Jones' ongoing research and active (as opposed to armchair) investigators such as CIT with their Pentagon research. Having said that, armchair investigation does have its place too.
The reason being we need to be not only confident but satisfied that any further investigation is doing the job and is seen to be doing the job properly, rather than trusting any 'experts'.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | I would only add that it does us (as a movement) no harm whatsoever to make ourselves as aware as it's possible to be of the events of that day |
Oh absolutely.
The point is, we have proven that the official account is impossible and that it violates physical laws (conservation of energy, conservation of momentum).
On top of having proven this, we don't need to go away and figure out how the whole operation was carried out.
In some matters, when asked questions we don't know the answer to, we should avoid to speculate or pretend to know.
Or if we do speculate, we should
(a) make it explicitly clear that what we are expressing is just an educated guess
(b) always keep in mind that speculation is just that and that we might be wrong, and that without evidence anybody can say anything.
And by evidence, I mean evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
Without evidence, Paul McCartney was replaced by spooks, and vampires roam this earth.
Without the scientific method, we are lost in the darkness of the Middle Ages (which is where the sick psychos want to take us).
Speculation invites inaccuracies, and inaccuracies can hurt our credibility.
Watch how Dr. Griffin handles these questions:
| Quote: |
Q: Why didn't the conspirators wait until a few hours after the attacks and then publicly demolish all three buildings as hazards to the public and for public safety reasons?
DRG: Again, apart from an investigation, in which people are induced to talk by subpoenas and threats of prison, we cannot know why they made the various decisions they made.
We can, however, make reasonable guesses in some cases.
|
| Quote: |
Q: Everyone al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah mentioned in his testimony had died shortly thereafter. Why has Abu Zubaydah survived? How come he hasn't been liquidated as well?
DRG: I would not presume to know.
And perhaps this is a good time to respond explicitly to your apparent assumption that, to challenge the official conspiracy theory, one must have an alternative theory of equal specificity, with answers to all the questions that could conceivably be raised about it.
But this is not true.
Let's say that you were accused by the authorities of murdering Bill Jones.
You would assume that, to get the case dismissed, all you and your lawyer had to do was to prove that you could not possibly have killed Jones.
But imagine that, after you had done so, the judge then declared:
"Sorry, that's not good enough. You must also tell us who did kill Jones, how the murder was committed, and why."
You would surely consider that unreasonable.
By analogy, the 9/11 Truth Movement has provided abundant evidence that the 9/11 attacks could not have been carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists.
We need not also specify exactly who did organize and carry out the attacks, all their motives, and why they handled each part of the operation and the cover-up as they did. So there is simply no need for us to try to explain why Zubaydah was not liquidated. |
_________________
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
