John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:16 am Post subject: ST 9/11: Prof Steve Jones response to Prof Jim Fetzer |
 |
|
| Quote: | My Response to"An Open Letter"
by Steven E. Jones
20 November 2006
Jim:
You wrote, "He is now planning to take control of the web site from me. I have raised objections on moral, legal and intellectual grounds and I am categorically opposed to it. But he appears to be persisting in what might be described as a "hostile take over" to control Scholars." "...his attempt to take over the site is morally, legally, and intellectually objectionable on many grounds, including that it qualifies as taking something that does not belong to him."
What nonsense. As I have written to you privately (e.g., appendix below), Jim, I have no interest at all "to take over the site." My work is research, and I have no interest to "control the Scholars." (Would you explain what that means to you?). Even if we agree by vote of all the members to have an elected committee to provide direction or oversight to the website, as we have discussed privately and on our Forum, I have clearly stated that I would not be on that committee. Period. So your accusation that I attempt "to take over the site" is not only unfounded, it is bizarre.
Further, I stated that I do not intend to continue much longer to work with you as co-chair of this group, for obvious reasons, but I wish to see civility restored here so I will continue on a while longer. If there is a vote on the idea of having a committee to oversee the st911 website, the vote will go to ALL members, and the option of having you continue as the sole manager of the website will be included as an option of course. All this is being discussed on our Forum, and we urge you to participate directly in that discussion. I posted our initial email exchanges on this subject on our Forum per your request. I am confident that if you would PERSONALLY visit the st911 Forum, you would find your statements above untenable.
Your "Open Letter" was posted on the st911 website yesterday without giving me the courtesy of preparing a simultaneous post. This constitutes a prime example of why there needs to be an elected committee to oversee the website, IMO. If an elected committee had approved of your open letter (even without simultaneous post from me) there would have been no hard feelings. There are other examples of course, and I and Dr. Legge and others find that you have been unresponsive to our requests for changes on the very cluttered website. Hopefully you will see the value of an elected editorial board for the organization's web page, should the membership choose that route. I urge the members of this group to not "jump ship" (as some have told me they are going to do) until after we have a chance for a vote on this issue -- and any other issue the members wish to see resolved. The society belongs to all the Scholars. We do not belong to you, Jim.
I sent to you scientific arguments against the notion that you promoted in Tucson, that some kind of energy-beam was directed from WTC 7 to bring down the Towers. (Interested folks may wish to watch Jim Fetzer's presentation here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=646337772656177512&q=Jim+Fetze r ) I'm very disappointed that you did not respond to my scientific arguments, but instead launched into this public diatribe, the ad-hominem tone of which is reminiscent of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds as many will recognize. Are you teamed up with them?
As I noted in my reply to the attack piece by Reynolds and Wood, "I would like to emphasize at the outset that Reynolds and Wood and I ...unitedly disagree with the official "conspiracy theory" that nineteen hijackers managed to get through the multi-trillion-dollar air defense system, and managed also to completely bring down these skyscrapers on 9/11. The details, HOW this was actually done, we disagree on.
"I will also observe that there is a group of 9/11 researchers, including Reynolds, Wood, Haupt and Holmgren, who take the approach of personalized attacks on any other researcher who dares to suggest that real planes hit the Towers. Really - they support the "no-planes-hit-Towers" notion so strongly that they resort to personal attacks on anyone who challenges their pet theory. As I have done."
The current "pet theory" that I have challenged is one now supported by you and (not surprisingly) Wood and Reynolds - the idea that "space beams" or "energy beams" were directed at the Towers to bring them down. But why must you take on the uncivil approach of ad hominem attacks rather than scientific discussion? I don't understand it, Jim. I thought the role of the Scholars group was to avoid the ad-hominem style and use the scientific method instead.
I will re-iterate below the scientific arguments I offered to you a few days ago. But first, let me state that I am willing to participate on your radio program, when the conditions I emailed to you five days ago are met:
November 15, 2006
Jim,
A few things need to be straightened out first.
1. Is the directed-beams hypothesis a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis?
Let the proponents delineate crucial experiments which will permit testing the hypothesis, and which have the potential of proving the hypothesis wrong. If an hypothesis is not falsifiable by experiments, it is not scientific.
2. Judy Wood and Morgan R have made unsubstantiated statements which need to be supported with facts or withdrawn before a civilized discourse could take place.
For example, Morgan Reynolds wrote on 8/24/06:
"The SJ-phenom kept building and building but it was headed for a big crash because of its obvious infirmities. Some argue that this behavior can be traced to the perps. Regardless, on hindsight it would have been better to have taken out this bilge months ago, Judy has been trying for six months in private. But SJ is incorrigible and a serial liar. We've got to clean up our own backyard mess before his implosion takes nearly all 9/11 skeptics down with him." (Morgan Reynolds)
Please then substantiate this claim that "SJ is incorrigible and a serial liar" with delineated facts (Morgan should do this). Also, explain how Morgan R. and Judy W. plan to take "out this bilge", so that we may be assured that no foul play is planned for the proposed debate.
Sincerely,
Steven Jones"
The email sent by Morgan R. (above) is quite revealing, isn't it? Have you bought into this program, Jim? But wait - if you and they will respond to my two conditions above, then yes, I will be happy to participate on your radio show once again. (You already invited Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood...)
And if you or Judy or Morgan have arguments against the thermate hypothesis, please be sure to explain the independent observations of high concentrations of finely powdered zinc, barium, manganese and sulfur in the WTC dust. I discussed these data and the chain of custody question thoroughly in my talks at UC-Berkeley, Univ. Denver, UC-Boulder and Sonoma State Univ. recently (videos are available). I find that rather than addressing my scientific arguments, you have attacked me personally. Further, recall that the beginnings of the Scholars group go back to Prof. Marcus Ford, who organized a nucleus of nearly 50 scholars during the spring/summer of 2005, long before you and I agreed to co-chair a more "formal" Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
Finally, I find that your latest letter and the divisiveness it engenders detract from the mission of the Scholars society. This is most disheartening. There is plenty of evidence now to enable us to join with other groups, to unitedly call for an investigation of certain "rogue" officials regarding 9/11 anomalies and the 9/11 wars.
We need solid leadership, not attacks on those who share the same overall goals.
Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones
I append several scientific arguments against the directed-beam notion espoused and promoted by Wood and Fetzer and Reynolds, based on my email to Jim Fetzer a few days ago:
Nov. 18, 2006
Jim,
It's about 2 am, but I woke up and care about you sufficiently to endeavor to reason with you.
I believe you have accepted and are presented arguments which are not only ill-founded, they are embarassingly wrong. (Tucson lecture http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=646337772656177512&q=Jim+Fetze r)
And I'd like to reason with you, Jim. Let's reason between ourselves, shall we?
1. You start out with the grand piano falling in over 30 seconds, from the height of a Tower. This is wrong. I teach the physics of air drag forces and concomitant terminal velocity -- and the terminal velocity depends very much on the mass (or weight/g) of the object.
Ask Judy to provide her calculation in writing, showing the area she has assumed and the mass, the density of air and the terminal velocity she calculates. Then let me or an independent physicist if you wish check this for you.
Consider a small parachute the size/area of a grand piano, with a man on it. He would fall quite fast. Now replace his mass with that of a grand piano (but in a ball of say lead). Surely you have enough horse-sense to see that the latter case will fall MUCH faster. And that's what the equations say also. A parachute the size of a grand piano acting on a large mass just doesn't slow it much. But let her show her calculations!!
Added: As Alfons showed on the Forum, the terminal velocity can be calculated with the help of a NASA web-site:
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/termvr.html . Alfons used a Yamaha grand piano,
o Length: 161cm (5'3")
o Width: 149cm -
o Height: 101cm
o Weight: 628 pounds (m = 285kg)
The drag coefficient depends on the attitude of the piano to the velocity vector as it falls; we take a maximum-drag orientation and therefore take a large drag coeff;
Mass = 285 kg
Cross Section = 2.3989 sq. meters
Drag Coefficient = 1.28 (Flat Object CD = 1.28
exploration.grc.nasa.gov/...aped.html)
Altitude = 417 meters = 1368 ft
Terminal Velocity = 40 m per second
Then the total fall time is 11 seconds (+or-). Which is just about the time the Towers took to collapse! Your example in your Tucson talk backfires on you... gives ammo to those who would debunk everything you say.
Jim, ask Judy to give you the equations, her calculations -- with numbers. And lets check her work.
2. You and Judy say that the bathtub was not damaged. Have you checked this out? I just wish you would read the research offered freely on our Forum. but let me quote from there, which in turn is quoting from an engineering journal:
"Half of WTC 'Bathtub' Basement Damaged By Twin Towers' Fall
(enr.com 10/8/01)
"Visual surveys indicate roughly 50% of the seven-level basement structure of the World Trade Center is now rubble as a result of the impact of the collapse of the twin 110-story towers. Outside the tower footprints, the section of greatest concern within the so-called 1,000 x 500-ft bathtub is along its south side. There, a 200 x 30-ft hole from 40 to 70 ft deep sits between the tub's perimeter slurry wall and the remains of Two WTC.
"A significant part of the south tower fell in and collapsed everything," says Joel L. Volterra, an engineer with Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, the city's local engineer on the bathtub.
"Engineers are busy drawing up emergency tieback, bracing and shoring schemes so that contractors can start mobilizing tieback rigs this week or next to anchor the south perimeter of the 70-ft-deep slurry wall.
"Roughly 40% of the bathtub's reinforced concrete diaphragm slabs and steel columns are in "pretty good shape," says George J. Tamaro, the Mueser Rutledge engineer leading the foundation repair team."
SO -- the engineers say only about 40% of the bathtub was in pretty good shape, the rest being significantly damaged. Water was only about 1 foot below the damaged area, in another report -- and pumps were brought in. The report does not say whether the pumps were needed or not, but that doesn't matter does it? The damage to the bathtub in PUBLISHED engineering reports says the damage to the bathtub was extensive.
Jim, someone is giving you erroneous information -- and you're swallowing it. Read the engineering reports for yourself.
3. I'm NOT seeking to wrest control of st911 -- but I do hope that you will listen to the MEMBERS about how they want the web site handled. We're hoping for ideas on how to handle the website, as many of us are not satisfied. Will you listen to the voice of the members, or is such a vote -taking idea just futile? You should read the discussion on the forum to know where I and others stand -- not just a few extracted and out of context quotes of me or others. I DO NOT seek power here, but a better web-site. Indeed, I've said that I want to end my co-chair status after one year, after we decide what to do about the web site, which is losing visitors the data clearly show.
We need to do something...
4. The generators in WTC 7 -- how many gallons of diesel fuel do you suppose they might burn in 10 seconds (Tower fall time, approx)?
Perhaps 20-30 gallons in 10 seconds? That would be 120-180 gallons
per minute -- and that seems high to me. I'm here paraphrasing an
argument by a PhD chemist on the Forum -- the power which the WTC 7 generators can deliver in 10 seconds is NOWHERE NEAR enough to vaporize steel and pulverize concrete. We know that explosives (like superthermite and RDX explosives) can do the pulverizing, because they store energy in small packages. But diesel fuel running generators (which are not even 50 % efficient ) simply cannot deliver the necessary energy in 10 seconds time. Can you see this? It's a conservation of energy argument which is very strong and I hope easy
to grasp when it is laid out like this. And the steel was thrown out
of the footprint area, much of it -- but not vaporized.
5. An energy beam with enough energy to pulverize concrete and vaporize steel -- what would this do to human flesh, Jim? Wouldn't flesh be charred? If not, why not? Yet body pieces -- not charred - were found all over GZ.
Jim, you're being sold a bill of goods by these people and I beg of you to consider sound arguments instead. It's now nearly 3 am and I'm going back to bed, sleep I hope. It really concerns me that you are being so easily led by the nose my friend by these ideas of Judy's or whoever. Ask for numbers, calculations. Insist on these so you can do some checking before you go telling people that a grand piano takes 21 seconds over the time of the tower's fall. What a bunch of obvious garbage, Jim. You're going to be laughed at by anyone who knows how to calculate terminal velocity, which is mass-dependent!
Will you listen to reason?
Steve |
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallious wrote: | Jones talked about how he had been threatened and offered bribes on occasions, to stop his research. I think we can assume other 9/11 ST members have been approached too.
Every man has a price... |
Here's some evidence of bribes and threats:
| Quote: | Comments regarding Prof. Jones’ “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” (More comments will be added as there is time. Not all of this will be fan-mail…)
1. Email to Prof Jones from a structural engineer in Texas:
“It occurred to me that structural engineers and architects are practitioners of static physics [like yourself] although we use different terminology peculiar to our professions to elaborate on our designs.
I am surprised how few of my colleagues have expressed public disbelief at the official line which lurches from theory to theory as the shortcomings of each became apparent. I guess they have run out of ideas on Building 7.
You nailed the biggest problem when you focused on the symmetry of collapse in comparison to the asymmetry of the damage... Steel high rises are designed (and overdesigned) as cantilever beams on end. There is so much redundant steel in these buildings because they have to resist hurricane force winds. Was there a hurricane in New York on Sept 11?
If steel framed structures designed by world class engineers (who are still being commissioned to design high rises elsewhere in the world) can collapse with so little provocation, I should send my diploma back and take up fortune telling.
So astute that the president promptly declared 9/11 an Act of War (the truth, sort of). This relieved the designers of having to defend themselves for negligent design. No professional liability policies cover war (because of exposure to explosives etc.), so no deep pockets to make a lawsuit worth while. So no engineer singing to a jury…”
2. From another structural engineer:
• “A couple of months back I examined [Jones] claims in detail. Initially I was a bit incredulous… so I downloaded all the official reports basically expecting to find holes in the good prof's hypothesis.
• I'm a professional civil engineer with a lot of experience in the construction of major structures and I was just astounded at what I found. In my COO days if my staff had put up reports like that relating to a disaster on my patch, there is no way they would have been accepted and I would have been asking some very tough questions: The [official] reports are not at all convincing.
• That they are not is a serious worry.
• Regards, Ted [last name withheld pending permission]
3. From a Mechanical Engineering Professor, email to Dr. Jones:
• “You may be interested in the fact that I have begun approaching discussions of the WTC "collapses" in my classes. It began with the appearance of your [SE Jones] article, last fall. I found the article just before class, and left it on my laptop so that when I plugged in the laptop projector, the students would see it. (I tried to make it look accidental.) Some were very interested, but I had a few violent responses… (e.g. "I'm extremely offended”) and a few of the students acted as though they would turn me in to the Dean. I'm embarrassed to say that I backed down.
• That was on a Friday (Veteran's Day). By Monday, I had my wagons in a circle and was ready to take on the Dean, if need be. I felt the topic of the WTC was totally appropriate to discuss in this class (Engineering Statics), and I could counter any logical argument against it. By the end of the semester, at least a third of the class was seriously questioning the official story. Also, I've been continually improving my techniques for approaching this topic in my classes, and it has become very rewarding.
• Last Thursday, I introduced the topic to my Strength of Materials class for the first time, and about half of the class jumped in to the debate. The topic of the day was material properties and how heat affects the strength and stiffness of steel. How could I resist? I was so pleased to find that half of the class was willing to debate the issue.
• As far as I know, I'm the only person in my department that doesn't buy the official story, and this bothers me. I have approached a few others, but they've each thought I was crazy, yet were unwilling to look at the facts. So far, I've not been called to the dean's office or the chair's office for covering this material.
• Beginning with your article, last semester, I made a separate folder on the class web space where I put links to various articles and videos.
• Last September [2005], you corresponded with my friend… In his letter to you, Alex mentioned that he has a friend who is an engineering professor. I am the person he was referring to.
• I'm sorry I didn't contact you then. I was afraid of what might happen with my career.
• Now, I'm more afraid of what is happening with the world than with my career.
• I'm writing you now because I'd like to join your Scholars for 9/11 Truth team.” [Prof. J. Wood at Clemson University]
4. From a mechanical engineer with ‘government contacts’, sent to Prof Jones and BYU administrators:
[Nov. 2005, shortly after Prof. Jones’ article first appeared on the web] “The publication of this [Jones] article can be stopped on the basis of endangerment, and I have the contacts to make this happen if necessary, but I prefer to give you the opportunity to consider the consequences - which you have not addressed. You need to give this very serious consideration. This is an issue that is more important than any individual career, or whether or not you believe that you are correct. …The molten metal may be the best evidence that local conditions in the fire where [sic] hotter than the post-test evaluation of specific points… your theories are likely to be subject to intense scrutiny and criticism. As painful as it may seem now, perhaps it may be less painful than could occur after publication.”
[Nov. 2005, after responses by Prof. Jones]: “The North Tower “squibs” [Jones discusses in his paper] are more interesting and deserve more attention because they are quite similar to the material ejected from the Southwark Towers shown at Implosionworld.com/cinema.htm.”
[Dec. 2005, following answers and detailed responses by Prof. Jones]: “I… have learned to appreciate the value of silence, even in the case of superior data and information…. There are, perhaps, several reasons why the administration [at BYU] would pay more particular attention to me than to you in this matter. First, you made many assertions without the least amount of analysis to support your assertions… [Prof. Jones challenged this comment!]
“I regret that you are still trying to publish your paper. The fact that a paper passes peer review and is accepted for publication should not be viewed as validation of ideas unless the peer reviewers are really qualified to perform the peer review.
“In contrast to studying things that could cause harm, the whole focus could be changed to something that is assured to prevent harm… Maybe a low velocity rocket fired from a helicopter could disperse fire retardants on a floor that can't be reached otherwise. Even if explosives are planted, this makes it much more difficult to cause the collapse of the building. If this interests you, I would be happy to contact Tom Hunter and the Head of Homeland Security to see if funding for BYU could be found to research options for this purpose.
Again, I am sorry for the difficulty of this interaction.”
[end of Dec., 2005]: “Steven: I have recently given some thought to how I can help you preserve your good name at BYU. My intent is to show that I have as much concern for your well being as I have in preserving the safety and security of others.
“It is better to demonstrate that structural collapse can be prevented than to show how or why structures may be collapsed. Toward this goal, I have recently had some ideas that may be inexpensive, passive, light weight and effective against attack by both fire and explosives. [A rather detailed outline for a suggested grant proposal follows, snip…]
“The concept is patentable, could be easily applied during construction (beneath facia), could be required by building codes, and has a potentially large market. Naturally, research is required to define the required thicknesses, attachment in a way that preserves existing fire protection, and attachment in a way that is difficult to remove without obvious alterations. It could even be added as a decorative feature in existing buildings.
“Perhaps you may come up be different or better ideas, but it suggests a course of action that protects others, rather than put them at risk. It could bring substantial resources to BYU, and could involve a cooperative effort between the structural design group and physics department. This would give you the opportunity to address your explosive ideas without having to capitulate, while improving the resistance of the structure to collapse by fire. It also generates a project that could bring the various departments together in a cooperative effort. Naturally, you are most likely to achieve the greatest success in such an effort if you change course, rather than continue to pursue your present effort…” [Name withheld. The reader can judge for her/himself the statements and tactics used by this man with “contacts.” Note that his comments and efforts to thwart publication of the Jones paper did not succeed, but may have influenced the statement by the BYU Fulton College of Engineering which follows.]
5. [The following was posted at the web site of the BYU Fulton College of Engineering and Technology from November 2005 to April 2006, when it was removed without explanation.]
"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. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
[Comments by Prof. Richard McGinn]: “Notice the form it takes. It undermines Jones' hypotheses with a hand-wave about academic procedure. No mention of the substance of Jones' work.
”Another problem of the statement: The Physics Department at BYU, which ran its own version of the offending statement on its web site last [autumn], was persuaded to take it down following a letter-writing campaign. Yet the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology continues to run the statement, including the surprising contention that "Professor Jones' own department" remains unconvinced. Well, is this true or not? Why did the Physics Department remove the offending statement from its own site? Did they have a change of heart, or did our letters merely induce the chair to stop harassing a faculty member, from a sudden burst of collegiality?
”It would really, really help if we could find ways to get engineers and scientists to focus on the substance of Professor Jones' hypotheses.” Richard McGinn
6. [Letter from Prof. McGinn to the Dean of the BYU Fulton College of Engineering and Technology, March 27, 2006]:
March 27, 2006
Alan R. Parkinson, Dean
Fulton College of Engineering and Technology
270 CB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
Dear Dean Parkinson,
I am writing to you both as an individual and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (ST911.org). At issue is a statement posted on the Engineering College’s web site that is harmful to the career and reputation of BYU physicist Steven Jones.
The web site makes three questionable statements. First, it implies that Dr. Jones’ in-progress research into the physics of the 9/11 attacks in New York has not yet been subjected to a relevant and sufficiently rigorous peer review process.
Second, it states without substantiation: “The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.” If they really mean this, the engineers should defend the official FEMA and NIST reports which Jones challenges, giving specifics.
Third, it names Dr. Jones’ own department as complicit in all of this, and in particular, that the Physics Department is "not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
I hereby request the Engineering College to remove the offending statement from its web site. At the very least, the College should remove the reference to Dr. Jones’ home department on the basis of the following, new, information. One of Dr. Jones’s research papers [“Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”] has undergone relevant and sufficient peer-review, and has been accepted for publication in a book to appear later this year, titled "9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" (Northampton, Mass: Olive Branch Press, 2006), edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott. In fact, as you may know, this paper had been peer reviewed for a publication by Elsevier Press. But after the stated concerns about "rigorous technical peer review," the paper was withdrawn and submitted to a different publication and peer reviewed again. One of the editors, while maintaining anonymity of the reviewers, disclosed that four PhDs reviewed this paper, two of whom were physicists (and thus peers). Notably, even before the fact of this forthcoming, peer-reviewed publication, BYU’s Physics Department revised its own web site last fall, removing its reference to Dr. Jones’ in-progress research. Therefore, as a first step, it behooves the Engineering College to follow suit, and to remove the following passage from the web site:
"Professor Jones' 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. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
There are additional reasons for deleting the unprofessional and unethical statement. First, although I am not a member of American Society of Civil Engineers, I am permitted, according to the ASCE code, to lodge an ethics complaint against an engineer. (The ombudsman for formal complaints to ASCE is: tsmith@asce.org).
Second, no dean has the right to represent individual faculty, much less the entire faculty of BYU’s Engineering College, on the issue of whether they do (or do not) “support” a colleague’s research, whether published or in-progress. The offending statement is a breach of collegiality, and seems as well to infringe upon Professor Jones’ academic freedom.
Most poignantly, it is inconsistent with the code of ethics of the American Society of Civil Engineers, by which you, as dean of the Engineering College, are bound, given that your web site claims to represent the opinions of an entire faculty of BYU engineers. The ASCR Code states in part:
"CANON 5.
g. Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injure the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another engineer or indiscriminately criticize another's work."
If members of the College disagree with Dr. Jones' assertions in his paper that the official FEMA and NIST reports are inadequate as they stand, then they should be specific in their reasons for supporting those reports, neither of which provides (routine) visualizations for finite element analyses.
Sincerely yours,
Richard McGinn
… mcginn@ohio.edu
CC: ASCE Ombudsman
AAUP Committee on Academic Freedom
[The web-statement by the Engineering College was soon removed.]
7. Email to Dr. Jones from an explosives expert:
• “I am a veteran of the United States Air Force and served for 10 years as an Explosive Ordnance Disposal Specialist.
•
• “I have read your paper concerning the WTC towers collapse and agree; Military thermite [which contains sulfur as an accelerant] is the only explanation for the molten slag found weeks after the collapse.… Thermite charges used in conjunction with small linear shaped charges could be used to drop the World Trade Center towers.
•
• Keep fighting the good fight.
•
• Sincerely,
• Michael …” 1/29/06 Email to Prof SE Jones
• Note on linear-shaped charges: "... Linear-shaped charges focus the energy of the charge into a line, generating about 3,000,000 pounds per square inch of pressure. This pressure creates a flow in the steel, forcing the steel aside. Such charges can be used to slice steel as thick as 10 inches." CDI p 43
8. Email to Prof. Jones from a Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT:
“I agree wholeheartedly with one comment [in Jones’ paper] – that the [official] enquiries are grossly inadequate and the conclusions may well be wrong. I have publicly stated that they are significant for what they do NOT say rather than for what they say. Building engineers on the defensive.”
9. Rep. Curt Weldon Town Hall Meeting (April 2006, transcript from audio tape)
Dave Slesinger: First, I want to praise you for your Able Danger efforts. Since you are the Congressman most sympathetic to firefighters, have you looked at the quotes from NYC firefighters at the World Trade Center on 9/11 about explosives? If you have, will you accept information on [this] for later comment?
Rep. Weldon: I will absolutely accept information, and I'm very close to the NYC firefighters because one of my best friends was killed there…
I talk to the fire department on a regular basis. When the Republican convention was held in New York in 2004, I went up a day early, I went down to the fire department headquarters. I spent the day with them. And when I finished the briefings, and getting their input, as to what happened on 9/11, which I had ongoing, I went up and spent two hours running with Engine 54 (inaudible) in midtown Manhattan. And I wanted to do that because on 9/11 all 15 firefighters on duty from that station were killed. And I wanted the firefighters to give me their views without going through any chiefs or other officers about what happened.
Now, there's a lot of theorists out there about what occurred. And uh, I haven't gone into the structural elements of the building. The fact that there are reports on multiple explosions on other floors... I am open to that information. I'm willing to challenge the system. And uh, and don't automatically discount anything that's told to me because I've seen, I've seen too much. I mean, ya know, I hate to say that sometimes I don't trust my Government, but sometimes, I don't trust the Government. The bureaucracy. Ya know the best evidence of that is we had the, uh, Tillman, the football player. Joined the army, he was killed. We now find out that the army burned his clothing. So the family never got to get the real story about how Pat Tillman died. Now if it was an accident, so be it. You don't hide that information because somebody is going to be embarrassed.
That's the whole story with Tony Shaffer. It's the bureaucrats trying to hide information and facts, so they're not embarrassed. So, do I automatically accept what the Government tells me? No. And that's why I get myself in trouble. I challenge the CIA, I challenge the DIA. I'll challenge our Defense Department. That's why you send me there. If you want somebody to go there, and just go along, you would send a robot. That would vote the way the party wanted, and would go along with the current President. I won't do that. So I'm absolutely open to any information anyone has that challenges anything about the 9/11 Commission or the work there.
Dave Slesinger speaks up: Congressman, that was my question, I, wanna give out, anybody who wants this, this is a speech by a physics professor at BYU, Steven Jones.
Rep. Weldon: Yea.
Dave Slesinger: It's the hottest thing happening on the 9/11 issue. In his speech, he praises Congressman Weldon, he's a conservative Republican [or was], he praises Reagan, he quotes St. Paul. I think I have [DVD copies] enough for everybody. Just ask me.
Rep. Weldon: It'll open your eyes, because his allegations are pretty strong.
[UVSC Presentation on Feb. 1, 2006, by Prof. Jones is available in various formats:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steven-jones-utah-seminar-video.h tml
checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones .] |
Direct link: http://www.911blogger.com/files/Com5May.html
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
