Sept. 11 theorizing professor speaks out

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/166195/4/

A BYU physics professor said a group he co-founded will ask for a Watergate-style special federal prosecutor to look into unanswered questions surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Steven E. Jones gave a presentation at Brigham Young University on Thursday about his theory that World Trade Center Building 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition rather than a terrorist attack. Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which Jones co-founded, is putting together a list of questions and will ask for a special prosecutor like the one used to probe the Watergate scandal, he said.

"Remember, I'm not alone anymore. I've got over 100 plus," he said, referring to the jump in membership in the Scholars group from about 40 to more than 140 since he spoke at Utah Valley State College on Feb. 1.
...
Among Jones's tenets -- fueled by research from engineers, scientists and government reports -- is that the Osama bin Laden "smoking gun" confession tape is a fake and that slag from the WTC7 building will prove it was felled by thermite, an explosive combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide. He also contends that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were contrived to gain access to oil there. Jones said he will soon receive a sample of the slag, and he believes analysis of the sample using an electron microscope will prove his thermite theory.

As part of his presentation, Jones briefly displayed a slide with a statement from BYU's Fulton College of Engineering, saying the department does not back his hypotheses.

When Jones presented information about the maximum temperature at which jet fuel can burn -- 1,000 degrees centigrade, he said -- an audience member shouted out, "It's 3,500. You're lying!" That data is crucial to government contentions that intense fires fed by jet fuel caused the buildings to fall.

During a question-and-answer period, one audience member asked why Jones gave "such a one-sided presentation" and did not expose his political leanings. Jones replied, "These are the facts," and said he does not identify himself as a Democrat or Republican but does support the Constitution.
...

"When Jones presented

"When Jones presented information about the maximum temperature at which jet fuel can burn -- 1,000 degrees centigrade, he said -- an audience member shouted out, "It's 3,500. You're lying!" That data is crucial to government contentions that intense fires fed by jet fuel caused the buildings to fall."

So Jones is engaging in the same deceit as I showed Fetzer to have done yesterday.

This should serve to alert you why Jones and Fetzer are avoiding addressing scientific papers inconvenient to them.

My comment to S King would

My comment to S King would be that if Steven Jones is wrong in his analysis and hypothesis, after it is reviewed by many professionals, many things may change and theories refined.
Many people have checked over his paper, probably hundreds of people and some scholars, so if he is in error as the audience member says, hopefully he will update his information.
Nothing is set in stone about his paper, just wanted to bring that fact up.

According to Wikipedia the

According to Wikipedia the maximum burn temp of jet fuel is near 1000º C:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jet_fuel

Rememer kids, centigrade and

Rememer kids, centigrade and farenheit numbers are different.

Try not to react hysterically.

Jet fuel is a misnomer for

Jet fuel is a misnomer for thermite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer

here,i'll post them again so

here,i'll post them again so you dont have to strain your brain:are you 100% satisfied with The 9/11 Commission Reports findings? do you feel they exsausted all avenues and and followed ALL leads to get the whole story? do you think the "investigation" into 9/11 was complete and satisfactory? come on S.King, i know you can do it, these are very basic questions.im just trying to see where your coming from.
Chris | 02.17.06 - 9:31 am | #

When Jones presented

When Jones presented information about the maximum temperature at which jet fuel can burn -- 1,000 degrees centigrade, he said -- an audience member shouted out, "It's 3,500. You're lying!"...."During a question-and-answer period, one audience member asked why Jones gave "such a one-sided presentation" and did not expose his political leanings."

Gee, perhaps some COINTELPRO in the audience to heckle Prof. Jones? What do you think, S. King?

who knew someone as

who knew someone as self-righteous as S.King wouldnt be able to answer a few sinmple questions? whats the matter? not in your protocal?or just too hard for ya?

Anonymous wrote... "...so if

Anonymous wrote...

"...so if he is in error as the audience member says, hopefully he will update his information.
Nothing is set in stone about his paper, just wanted to bring that fact up."

Not only have Jones and Fetzer been asked to address issues for months, they have been asked repeatedly to reveal their assumptions, data, methodolgies, and calculations as any scientist does normally to justify their statement on their web site, "Physics research establishes that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings."

Yet, to date none have been revealed to anyone publicly. Are we not justified to hold their feet to the fire?

Additionally, Jones and Fetzer have relied on conspiracy sites and included some well-known debunk conspiracists. Where is the science? Where are the scientists?

It becomes increasingly clear that their motivation is political, to create a groundswell of public pressure to get a public prosecutor to hold hearings.

It should be clear that science, facts, and evidence are irrelvant to them. They are counting on those who accept their claims uncritically to propel a populist movement.

But there are many of us who will continue to show that Emperors Jones and Fetzer wear no clothes.

Great. I'm all for hearings.

Great. I'm all for hearings. Thanks S. King for the uplifting thoughts.

dz should just bann this

dz should just bann this shill... he hasnt helped anyone and he is the only shill here...

he wont even answer a simple question...

inside, what's 1 + 1?

inside, what's 1 + 1?

2 of course... see how easy

2 of course... see how easy that was???

oh man, you guys are too

oh man, you guys are too murch.

all lies lead to the

all lies lead to the truth.
--dana scully

Inside... do you remember

Inside... do you remember Natasha? Do you remember when I asked her what researchers she did approve of, and she wouldn't answer? She had no problem picking apart just about every researcher out there, but when I asked which one she actually liked, she didn't have a clue.

Hey Gold, I thought you were

Hey Gold, I thought you were Natasha.

S.King, but Emporers Cheney

S.King, but Emporers Cheney and Bush were clothes right? why not answer my 3 simple questions? are you that slow? really?

*wear

*wear

Jon, Are you guys upset

Jon,

Are you guys upset because I show Fetzer and Jones to be somewhat less truthful than you thought?

Another vote to give "S.

Another vote to give "S. King" the boot. There's a difference between offering a different opinion and operating as a disruptive shill. This site has no need for shills; every other forum on the internet is packed with them. Get rid of him.

Oh no John was

Oh no John was Natasha!?

HOLY...WE....I MEAN THOSE E-MAILS...I THOUGHT...

YT wrote... "operating as a

YT wrote...

"operating as a disruptive shill."

Just how? Please explain.

I have no desire to interact

I have no desire to interact with you.

wow 15 comments and a whole

wow 15 comments and a whole lot of nothing was said...

We're better than that.

It is definately prudent to

It is definately prudent to present both sides...I don't remember when 9/11 truth became '9/11 Truth...as long as it fits into my idea of the US gov orchestrating 9/11'. That said, the skeptics still have not been able to refute the claims WTC7 was controlled demolition. I think the controlled demolition of WTC7 and total government foreknowlege and complicity in the attacks has been well established. Whether people want to go a bit further and draw their own conclusions, that's their poragative.

so S.King, have you always

so S.King, have you always been a coward? ive asked you the same 3 basic questions about 10 times now, and you still ignore it like the coward you clearly are.

are you 100% satisfied with

are you 100% satisfied with The 9/11 Commission Reports findings? do you feel they exsausted all avenues and and followed ALL leads to get the whole story? do you think the "investigation" into 9/11 was complete and satisfactory? come on S.King, i know you can do it, these are very basic questions.im just trying to see where your coming from.
Chris | 02.17.06 - 9:31 am | #

watch as S.King cowardly

watch as S.King cowardly changes the subject and refuses to answer the most basic of questions.its so hard to stray off of protocal huh S.King?

we must really be starting

we must really be starting to make a difference if shills like S.King are showing up regularly to toute the government.thanks for the morale boost King!

A little background: last

A little background: last night, dz requested:
_______________----
chris and s. king,

stop referencing one another when posting comments please. if you want to direct all of your comments towards each other use email please.

No... I was not Natasha...

No... I was not Natasha... S. King... I'm actually not mad. I was being a smart ass which is something I tend to do.

signal to noise....., you

signal to noise.....,

you are exactly right using that name..

today over 50% of our comments were focused on s. king, comments to him, and comments on the comments to him.. all completely pointless except in watering down the useful comments (aka signal to noise ratio).

S. King,

I removed your ability to post comments here. I tried my hardest not to need to do this, but after the last 2-3 days of dominating the comments here I have come to doubt your sincerity in your comments.

Please know that you are not in any way being banned for your personal opinions. We have other users here who have disagreed with some of the same things you have recently disagreed with and we have done our best to let everyone here have a voice. This site is full of people who disagree with one another, but usually we can at least keep things social.

It seems through your posts that you are interested in circuituous arguments. You request information on why some hold certain beleifs, then blindly write off their opinions as having no basis - asserting that their opinions must be based on what you consider 100% undeniable evidence - all while refusing to hold government reports that have noticible ommissions to your same exacting standards.

I have no issue at all with differing opinions, if people dont challenge their beleifs then we would never learn anything. I actually appreciated the link you posted on the UBL 'confession tape'. I hope that you might join Jon Gold's forum and try to have some sort of fruitful discussion there which has not happened in the 2-3 days here. You can sign up and visit this thread I made for you:

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8380

Perhaps on the forum all of those interested in having a fruitful discussion with you can have a better chance, as these comments are not suited for any real long term discussion. Hope to see you there.

sorry dz i didnt read your

sorry dz i didnt read your whole post before posting.. sorry... and good job..

gold wrote..Inside... do you remember Natasha? Do you remember when I asked her what researchers she did approve of, and she wouldn't answer? She had no problem picking apart just about every researcher out there, but when I asked which one she actually liked, she didn't have a clue.

it might be her... check her/his package, gold

No thanks.

No thanks.

You can have my tinfoil hat

You can have my tinfoil hat when you pry it from my cold, dead head... unless you've got a black hood and some electric wires you'd like to trade for it. The official story does not account for how the attacks succeeded- ignored warnings, air defense failures, laws of physics violated in building collapses, expert flying by incompetent hijacker pilots, etc., etc.- none of us knows what really happened, which is why there needs to be a new investigation. The fact that there's such a mountainous pile of evidence pointing to official complicity makes the need 1000 times as urgent. Why are y'all getting upset over S. King- this person was hilarious- either s/he's sincerely trying to save us pathetic, needy conspiracy theorists from our delusion that these election-stealing, war-profiteering neocons don't have the public's best interests in mind, or s/he knows very well 9/11 was an inside job, and trying to disrupt and sow doubt seeds is their CIA day job. It's very encouraging they care enuf to fight us.

Can someone please explain

Can someone please explain what it gains us to possibly prove that thermite was used in bringing down the towers?

We have already proved that the government's gravitational collapse theory is physically impossible and so we know we can't blame the collapses on "planes". (Galileo let the cat out of that bag centuries ago, and he didn't [need to] know a thing about steel, aluminum, jets, or jet fuel!) Further, we can't arrest "thermite".

Worse, it seems far-fetched at best to try to make "thermite" account for the molten metal found weeks afterward, nor all the smaller-than-2.5-micron beyond-dust particles, nor the humongous pyroclastic dust/debris clouds, nor the fires which continued to burn for 99 days despite constant dousing with water -- 4 pieces of evidence which together point to a highly unconventional, paradigm-bending energy event having taken place at "ground zero".

So even if Jones manages to prove that thermite was used, or somehow that it can be solely blamed for the collapses, that still will leave unexplained (based upon what Jones has published so far, anyway) the well-documented evidence which seems at least as remarkable as the collapses themselves.

Further, I hypothesize(d to Jones) that the dust samples hold far more revealing clues and meaningful evidence (ie, nanoparticles), so I'm more interested in hearing that Jones has tested the dust sample he's told us he already had in his possession than hearing about what he may find in samples of slag for which he's waited, because thermite is "conventional", whereas something extraordinary that left a lot of extraordinary particles behind would, in addition to better accounting for the extraordinary collateral evidence, have a much better chance of truly awakening the sheeple, IMHO.
______________________________________

911blimp wrote: "We have

911blimp wrote:
"We have already proved that the government's gravitational collapse theory is physically impossible and so we know we can't blame the collapses on "planes"."

But the webpage referred to does not show this. It simply asserts that since collapse times are only slightly longer than free fall, the official story cannot account for them.
FD Greening, in his paper http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf does make detailed calculations, and shows that, though it may be counterintuitive, we *should* on the basis of conservation of energy and momentum expect such collapse times in the pancaking scenario.
As far as I know, these have not been refuted, though I have asked quite a few people, among which prof Steven Jones, and structural engineers' professional associations, among which ASCE. So far, no reply.
There is an extensive discussion of this in my blog.

As I see it, as long as Greening's results have not been refuted, collapse times neither vindicate nor refute the controlled demolition idea. Nor the official story. Collapse times just provide no argument.

Neither does thermite, by the way. Greening shows in another paper molten aluminium from the fuselage may well have reacted with gypsum and ferrous oxide in the building. Exact same chemistry as thermite.
See http://911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

The last point, by the way, I have also brought under the attention of prof Steven Jones. Since I am also a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth movement I thought I had an obligation to do so. No reply yet (but it's only a few days ago).

There are things wrong with

There are things wrong with Greening's paper. For starters, the energy required to destroy one floor worth of structure appears to be a wild guess, referenced only by others willing to wage these. Second, why would anyone assume that the floors were accelerated by g throughout one floor's height, only substracting (fictive?) numbers for energy lost by deformation afterwards? Third, why assume all mass was acting as solid "piston" when it's clear as day that quite some of it was ejected far out of the footprint? Fourth, estimates about the towers mass and composition appear to have been off, by Greening's own admission. See http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread192893/pg1

PS: However, controlled

PS: However, controlled demolition would of course allow for adjustion of the collapse times into accordance to plausible gravity-driven scenarios calculated beforehand. Therefore discussion of collapse times seems moot.

Let's focus on the molten metal, symmetry, documented damage to the lobby, squibs, pyroclastic flow, etc.

Michiel Brumsen, from whom I

Michiel Brumsen, from whom I have recently received some curious, self-contradicting (details available upon request), emails, prefers to believe in scholarly-looking counter-intuitive fiction-based numbers than common sense: He has latched on to Greening's numbers, even though they can not possibly reflect reality.

The concept of "conservation of energy" (and of momentum) still eludes him, and, thus, so does 911blimp's simpler, uncontestable disproof of the government's collapse theory (Michiel seems to feel that all such physics proofs must be quantitative, based upon "estimates", over which people could argue endlessly).

Consider that things cannot fall as fast through water as the towers collapsed through steel, and how water is a fluid -- that means that water can be pushed out of the way (ie, rearranged) without necessitating the breaking of any molecular bonds, which requires (consumes) lots of energy (which is, after all, what makes a solid solid).

Recognizing that the towers collapsed through a path of such great resistance, requiring the expenditure of vast amounts of energy (have you ever tried to pulverize [or dissociate!] concrete?!?!), in as little time as things can fall through air, proves that the supposedly-undamaged lower floors and steel columns did not fully, or even partially, oppose the collapse, rendering the government's collapse theory null and void.

Meanwhile, unlike the towers, my question about what it gains us to blame the collapses on "thermite" still stands. (I came here just now looking for an answer to that question. Oh well...)

By the way, Jim Hoffman gave what I heard was an inspired presentation at the 2nd inquiry in Toronto in 2004, in which he used the Ideal Gas Law (and conservation of energy) to disprove the government's collapse theory. I'm told that Jim received a standing ovation for it, but since then it's been ignored, as if the presentation never occurred. Is there any video of that presentation?
______________________________________

I'm pretty sure there were

I'm pretty sure there were videos made of all the presentations in Toronto.

well, 911blimp, why don't I

well, 911blimp, why don't I invite people to read the email you refer to here, so that people can judge for themselves?
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22336252&postID=113999661741085774, (comment 43)