Dr. Jones' MUST READ new article.

Originally posted by lost again
personally i find many opinions here unfathomable.

some of you are just sick in the head. still defending one of the biggest lies in history because we cannot prove this singular facet (thermate) is valid.

look at ALL the red flags! -not that the thermate isnt valid, but c'mon grow a brain already, 911 was NOT carried out by 19 boxcutting saudis, half of which are still alive. WTC7 did not collapse because of fire, wait uh, something (hush hush). etc. etc. etc.

Wow paranoid?You are the one who just can't get it.Red flag?????Every thing you spout is a red flag against science and logic.Sad that you fall for Indiana JONES and DA over and over again! Talking to you people is like telling a child NO!WHY WHY? Why, indeed think for your self,and look at what real experts in their field of expertise says about this.Jones is a hack!!!So are his suckers, I mean disciples!

Originally posted by TxSecret
zappafan1,



Anyone trying to compare this to the "collapses" on 911 need to understand that this still does not explain how a localized failure can cause an entire building to collapse.



[edit on 22-7-2006 by TxSecret]

Why not?

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by TxSecret
zappafan1,



Anyone trying to compare this to the "collapses" on 911 need to understand that this still does not explain how a localized failure can cause an entire building to collapse.



[edit on 22-7-2006 by TxSecret]

Why not?

You first Vushta..

Duhh
Talking to you people is like telling a child NO!WHY WHY? Why, indeed think for your self,and look at what real experts in their field of expertise says about this.Jones is a hack!!!So are his suckers, I mean disciples!

Funny.. was just thinking the same thing about you. So who are these REAL experts in their field of expertise again??


One thing I noticed about this bridge incident.. The bridge was weakened by the heat and buckled.. but didn't completely collapse, even after a huge pool of fuel was burning on it for how long? (Over two hours I think)

I wonder if there were streams of molten metal spewing out the sides as the fire burned..

AGAIN I ask all the people here, the experts, the skeptics, the intellegencia... anyone who give's a damn... In the case of WTC 7, how in the world did it collapse so globally and perfectly in the time that it did after suffering only localized damage?

[edit on 22-7-2006 by TxSecret]

See the fact that real experts has to be explained to you ,is a laugh.There is no one in the the engineering field that agrees with Prof.Cold Fusion.His physics back ground is pathetic.He has gone out of his way to dupe you.Just reading his paper shows that.Out of context and simili.Pathetic.Why is it not peer reviewed in a science journal that would correspond to his ,supposed studies?????


LOL LOL LOL LOUDER!!!!!!!!!!!

How is your blood pressure Duhh?

Duhh
There is no one in the the engineering field that agrees with Prof.Cold Fusion.His physics back ground is pathetic

Sure about that??? (Please don't make me hold your hand on that one)


I never said that I bought into the entire thing but I'm not so closed minded that I can't see some very good and important self evident and obvious questions that were asked and quite frankly need to be answered. I'm learning more about Dr. Jones' credentials and he seems to be quite legitimite. Do I have to remind you that it's not uncommon for many legitimate scientists to dabble in "fringe" areas such as quantum physics?? (And YES.. Quantum physics is indeed a fringe area of science with much of it a mystery and STILL unexplained much to the chagrine of the dogmatic box crowd) Just because he has done research in cold fusion does that automatically make him a 100% crackpot or are you just caught up in a rather sad knee jerk reaction based on some preconceived notion and a rather unhealthy dose of bias? Have you really looked at the work that Dr. Jones has done in cold fusion? (Probably not) I haven't either to any real extent so I'm will not be passing judgement on that anytime soon.

Try again Duhh.







[edit on 22-7-2006 by TxSecret]

And YES.. Quantum physics is indeed a fringe area of science with much of it a mystery and STILL unexplained much to the chagrine of the dogmatic box crowd
Once again you swallow the poison pill! Yes fringe,lie to make fringe real,NO! AJ and his creww are laughing stock at best.Zero cred.Come on that was easy.Do some damn research!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you never read this!Would love to know what your research says about this,and Indiana Jones,as in fictional character.
www.geocities.com...


[edit on 22-7-2006 by Duhh]

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Duhh]

Sorry Duhh but last response went over my head. If Dr. Jones physics background is so pathetic how in the world did he become a Brigham Young University physics professor??


Let's see if you can answer that one.

Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on. Instead, his paper was peer reviewed in Research in Political Economy, Volume 23. Jones's paper is the only paper this journal has passed concerning building collapses.

But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fell due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.

Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.

A few department chairmen at Jones's university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

from www.geocities.com...
It only gets better,please read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My favorite recent ,out of context lie is this,from AJ!
"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said."

--From the mouth of AJ's quotee

-One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.

See the diff,why does he do this ?Bad Bad Man.

Duhh,

Nothing you just said changes the fact that Dr. Jones is indeed a legitimate physics professor at Brigham Young University. There is nothing you can do to change that.

I don't care if the Brigham Young University doesn't want to have anything to so with his paper, it still doesn't change the fact that man knows something about physics.

Buliding collapse forensics? hhehe.. I wonder how many scientists/building engineers in he world actually specialize in that. (Probably not a whole lot BEFORE 911)

Dr. Jones paper may not be imperical evidence of a 911 conspiracy but you can't 100% descredit him either, no matter how hard you try, so save your energy and stop trying.

The work he has done has raised some truly legitimate questions and is worthy of debate .


Why don't you spend less energy trying to shoot something down that you can't and more energy debating it?

To:that was over your head.Do some research on the cold fusion project s few years ago,that claimed they had pulled it off.Then, find out what AJ had to do with this .His reaseach was lied about,or lost or whatever you care to "believe".It did not stand up to peer ,REAL PEER REVIEW!!!!One Clue.Ponds and Someone else,Ok thats two good luck!

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, must be a lie!!!!!!

Damn semantics again! I meant DUCK!!!!

Originally posted by Duhh
My favorite recent ,out of context lie is this,from AJ!
"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said."

--From the mouth of AJ's quotee

-One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.

See the diff,why does he do this ?Bad Bad Man.

Maybe because the instance of tens of thousands of burning computers doesn' happen that often. Could it be he's speculating on how it happened this time perhaps? (Nooooooo!) hehe

Originally posted by Duhh
To:that was over your head.Do some research on the cold fusion project s few years ago,that claimed they had pulled it off.Then, find out what AJ had to do with this .His reaseach was lied about,or lost or whatever you care to "believe".It did not stand up to peer ,REAL PEER REVIEW!!!!One Clue.Ponds and Someone else,Ok thats two good luck!

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, must be a lie!!!!!!

Damn semantics again! I meant DUCK!!!!

Oh.. but he's STILL a physics professor at Brigham Young University... Oh darn.. don't you just HATE that?

I'm looking into his work on cold fusion as I do like to dabble in that from time to time just to see what's going on. You have also not provided enough data to support your claim that Dr. Jones work in cold fusion somehow 100% ruins his credibility concerning his paper we are debating now.




[edit on 22-7-2006 by TxSecret]

Nothing you just said changes the fact that Dr. Jones is indeed a legitimate physics professor at Brigham Young University. There is nothing you can do to change that.

Sooo,you are saying to trust the same gov.about his cred,institutional wise,that you sooo don't trust.WoW it must be tough to sleep at nite.See, the deal is look at what they have done.You should know who's word you are taking for fact.You did not read this page at all!!!!!Does it concern you at all no other great "physics" profs agree with him outside the"scholars" !!!!!LOL LOL LOL!!!!!

www.geocities.com...

You have also not provided enough data to support your claim that Dr. Jones work in cold fusion somehow 100% ruins his credibility concerning his paper we are debating now.

Thats why I asked you to check him out.You seem to know nothing of him other than this nonsense.You don't see to understand his "science".Don't blame ya there.Neither does any real,engineer,or person that could really help ya .Read the page I sent ya .Still sound legit?HELL NO!!!!!!

As to the state ment that being a prof.gives cred beyond expertise is a LOL!
While in college did you never have profs,that you thought were daft?With good reason! While in school you learn a great many truths.First is those who can do,DO,and those who can't teach.Simplistic I know ,but pay attention!Publish or parish!Every paper the great"AJ"has published has gone NO where!Dead end science,at least for this world.To say that being a prof of phys makes him capable of being an engineer,is an insult to engineers everywhere!Plus he LIES, SEE ABOVE POSTs!!!

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Duhh]

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Duhh]

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Duhh]

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

Above, from [link] www.popularmechanics.com...

I would have to say that, since Pop. Mech. isn't gov't. funded, and have an accredited staff, it's worth a look.

Jones got hired because BYU is a bastion of Liberalism.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by zappafan1]

Localized damage to WTC 7?

According to members of the NYFD, there was a 20 story chunk taken out of WTC 7 when one of the towers collapsed. If thats localized, I would hate to know your definition of widespread.

Exactly:

On about a third of the face (WTC-7) to the center and to the bottom, approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.....also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Originally posted by lost again
personally i find many opinions here unfathomable. it seems that theres still quite a few personalities that enjoy being lied to. keep lying to me as long as you can defend that lie with another lie.

all this 'chain of custody' bit is about as lame as squeaky fromme claiming charles manson was jesus.

some of you are just sick in the head. still defending one of the biggest lies in history because we cannot prove this singular facet (thermate) is valid.

look at ALL the red flags! -not that the thermate isnt valid, but c'mon grow a brain already, 911 was NOT carried out by 19 boxcutting saudis, half of which are still alive. WTC7 did not collapse because of fire, wait uh, something (hush hush). etc. etc. etc.

some of you are just sad. where is your patriotism? because the case still has 0.00001 percent deniability, youre willing to defend the biggest coup in history? and all the while waving the banner of "innocent till proven guilty." Its laughable, but i want to puke. Cant we all agree that in a regular court of law that this administration, its black ops muscle, and the official story it still perpatrates would be found guilty guilty GUILTY!

but some of you are stuck on 'political correcto' nonsense.

is it worth it? America has everyday been more increasingly destroyed since that day and some of you nitwits are still standing around with your thumbs in your mouths. Grow some man-units and accept the facts. and my goodness, if you want to be an idiot - dont do it at the expence of the greatest nation in history.

Great post - my thoughts exactly as I read these posters (i.e. Howard) that seem to make it a major objective in their lives to try and support the obvious lies of 911. It must make them feel great to repeatedly lick the boots of the government and mainstream media's version of 911, and try and refute the mountain of legitimate evidence that is available to those who look (and use common sense). Sad, really.