Reader comments
Tad Walch: 9/11 theorist not curtailing his research
419 comments | Read story
Steve Bishop | 9:13 a.m. May 4, 2008
Ooops, glaring mistake in my last comment. I assumed it was ABC and then posted
later on that it was CBS in my google search terms. Looks stupid. :-( There, I
said it before someone else. Oh well, comment still stands...google it
yourself.
"cbs news $2.3 Trillion".
Maybe Deseret News will correct it for me.
"cbs news $2.3 Trillion".
Maybe Deseret News will correct it for me.
brisa | 9:17 a.m. May 4, 2008
One either has to believe in the laws of physics relative to conservation of
momentum or trust that the official narrative of the 911 atrocity is true. They
are mutually exclusive.
Objects or buildings that fall at a free-fall rate fall with no resistance. Discounting air resistance, this is the case with WTC1, 2 and especially building 7. The widely trumpeted "pancake collapse theory" would introduce significant resistance as upper floors would have to crash through many tens of stories of undamaged structure. The actual rate of the collapse of these three structures as corroborated by unspinnable video evidence, exposes the fallacious nature of the official explanation. A free-fall rate of collapse is only possible if all structural integrity is eliminated just ahead of the collapse wave. This set of parameters can only be accounted for by the controlled demolition of these buildings.
Every American has to decide whether to trust this government and corporate controlled news media or whether to apply some critical thinking skills in the evaluation of widely disseminated information concerning the 911 atrocity. Since my government has a long history of protecting me from the truth �for my own good�, I'll stick with Newton and Galileo.
Objects or buildings that fall at a free-fall rate fall with no resistance. Discounting air resistance, this is the case with WTC1, 2 and especially building 7. The widely trumpeted "pancake collapse theory" would introduce significant resistance as upper floors would have to crash through many tens of stories of undamaged structure. The actual rate of the collapse of these three structures as corroborated by unspinnable video evidence, exposes the fallacious nature of the official explanation. A free-fall rate of collapse is only possible if all structural integrity is eliminated just ahead of the collapse wave. This set of parameters can only be accounted for by the controlled demolition of these buildings.
Every American has to decide whether to trust this government and corporate controlled news media or whether to apply some critical thinking skills in the evaluation of widely disseminated information concerning the 911 atrocity. Since my government has a long history of protecting me from the truth �for my own good�, I'll stick with Newton and Galileo.
Comments continue below
bill | 9:17 a.m. May 4, 2008
"They do point out that terrorists had already tried to destroy them years
earlier, which could explain some of the materials found in the debris."
arc
The man who built the bomb used in the first attack on the World Trade Center was a former intelligence officer in the Egyptian Army named Emad Salem, who at the time of the bombing, was working as an informant/agent provacatuer for the FBI. Mr. Salem testified in open court that he asked his FBI handler to permit him to exchange the live explosive (that he himself acquired) in the bomb for a harmless substitute, but the FBI told him to use the real thing instead.
Mr. Salem's testimony is a matter of public record, but niether the "mainstream press" nor the government seems to be very interested in making the American public aware of it.
Google the words, Emad Salem, World Trade Center for more information on this state sponsored terror attack.
arc
The man who built the bomb used in the first attack on the World Trade Center was a former intelligence officer in the Egyptian Army named Emad Salem, who at the time of the bombing, was working as an informant/agent provacatuer for the FBI. Mr. Salem testified in open court that he asked his FBI handler to permit him to exchange the live explosive (that he himself acquired) in the bomb for a harmless substitute, but the FBI told him to use the real thing instead.
Mr. Salem's testimony is a matter of public record, but niether the "mainstream press" nor the government seems to be very interested in making the American public aware of it.
Google the words, Emad Salem, World Trade Center for more information on this state sponsored terror attack.
Ray | 9:31 a.m. May 4, 2008
Thanks to Dr Jones for his great work on this matter. I have been exposed to
this alternative theroy fairly recently and I am looking at it with an open
mind. What is most interesting to me is that those who back the gov. theory are
not at all informed and they are backing the gov. theroy blindly (almost like a
religion). They are the ones who leave a rude comment or resort to name calling
such as "what a kook" etc. without any intelligent response. On the
other hand all those who believe there is more to the story than what the media
has told us, seem to be very well informed and are not afraid of a dialogue. One
day Dr Jones and all the other 9/11 researchers will be remembered as the heros
that they are and the rest of us will be ashamed of just sitting in our living
rooms and not having done a thing to support them.
Regards.
Regards.
Dave | 9:35 a.m. May 4, 2008
3 buildings 2 planes. Nobody has ever said the plane that went down in PA was
going to the third building.
Nicholas | 9:52 a.m. May 4, 2008
There you go; Professor Jones is intelligent and personable. And he raises a
good point: Those of you discounting him and calling him names probably
haven't even read the paper that the article is based on.
Well the 3 people who peer reviewed the paper read it and approved it. Can anyone criticizing this decent man bring themselves to do the same?
Well the 3 people who peer reviewed the paper read it and approved it. Can anyone criticizing this decent man bring themselves to do the same?
Ken | 9:53 a.m. May 4, 2008
How does this guy scientifically explain how the US government cordinated with
19 Islamic high-jackers to blow up the the twin towers without anyone finding
out? Did you not see the US Gov't 's response to Hurricane Katrina or
their entering/running the War in Iraq? The idea that the US gov't is smart
enough to cordinate anything is completely unbelievable. I don't care if
the guy spends his entire life trying to support his theory. Common Sense tells
you that there are too many unexplainable questions that will never be answered.
Common sense refutes many of his claims about what happened on 9/11. We will
never know the whole story regarding 9/11. This guy is trying to save his
believe in science at any cost. I've been at the top of the Trade center
and I am not surprised one bit that it fell over. I think more time should be
spent in uncovering the incompetence of our government and its leadership
instead of trying to prove why steel can't melt.
Jim | 9:55 a.m. May 4, 2008
Dear Dr. Jones,
Thank you for not being afraid to tell the truth. I work a lot with steel and welding and I know what it takes to melt metals. I feel sorry for some of the people posting their comments on this article who are afraid of the truth. It is hard to believe when you have been brain washed your whole life to just trust the Government and don't ask questions. The people who doubt what you are saying simply have not read all the scientific and other evidence that has surfaced.
Please people It's time to WAKE UP!!!
Jim
Thank you for not being afraid to tell the truth. I work a lot with steel and welding and I know what it takes to melt metals. I feel sorry for some of the people posting their comments on this article who are afraid of the truth. It is hard to believe when you have been brain washed your whole life to just trust the Government and don't ask questions. The people who doubt what you are saying simply have not read all the scientific and other evidence that has surfaced.
Please people It's time to WAKE UP!!!
Jim
Hippie | 9:58 a.m. May 4, 2008
Too many people would have to be involved? If they all had a conscience yeah, I
think some people just cant imagine there are evil people in the world and that
they want to obtain powerful positions.
It got hot enough to cause collapse from the plane at 740 degrees. Ok fine, If I give you that, The question remains why there was material that was at molten temperature for so long after 9/11...
Had to laugh at that common sense comment... common is the preface, I didn't know effects of plane crashes into building was common. Common sense is applied (or not) to everyday situations.
Gravity happened to WTC7? sillyboy your name lives up to literal definition! if you were to lift WTC7 up in the air to double its height and drop it, then you'd be on to something. Gravity doesnt dispel matter at close to free fall speeds.
It got hot enough to cause collapse from the plane at 740 degrees. Ok fine, If I give you that, The question remains why there was material that was at molten temperature for so long after 9/11...
Had to laugh at that common sense comment... common is the preface, I didn't know effects of plane crashes into building was common. Common sense is applied (or not) to everyday situations.
Gravity happened to WTC7? sillyboy your name lives up to literal definition! if you were to lift WTC7 up in the air to double its height and drop it, then you'd be on to something. Gravity doesnt dispel matter at close to free fall speeds.
eric b | 10:04 a.m. May 4, 2008
It is rather difficult to explain how the steel reinforced concrete pillars, all
47, were able to collapse straight down through themselves, and all the concrete
pulverized into a fine dust. A whole lot of compression.
Time to WAKE UP | 10:12 a.m. May 4, 2008
Yes that's right folks we have been hood winked by our corrupt leaders.
9-11 was an inside job all the way.
Look at all the evidence then you will understand.
Don't be afraid of the truth.
Look at all the evidence then you will understand.
Don't be afraid of the truth.
The South Point | 10:25 a.m. May 4, 2008
Thank you, Dr. Jones and the people who have worked with you, for investigating
into this matter.
We're not easily-distracted three-year-olds. We're adults. We want the truth, whatever the truth may be.
We're not easily-distracted three-year-olds. We're adults. We want the truth, whatever the truth may be.
Sitting-Bull | 10:39 a.m. May 4, 2008
@ George Kramer:
The melting point of Vanadium is 2175 K (1902 �C).
Don't know how one can imagine to turn such stuff to dust via gravity alone. Note that the potential energy of the building mass was needed to destroy itself, if we accept the official non-explanation for once.
As for the molten steel: First a part of the official theory, as CNN Garrick Utley promotes this theory on the night on 01/12/9, later dismissed as fiction, although the FEMA appendix C "limited metallurgical examinations" found steel corroded like swiss cheese, formed eutectic mixtures with sulfur and was molten at 1000� C, the NIST chose to overlook that, and John Gross denies molten steel outright.
The melting point of Vanadium is 2175 K (1902 �C).
Don't know how one can imagine to turn such stuff to dust via gravity alone. Note that the potential energy of the building mass was needed to destroy itself, if we accept the official non-explanation for once.
As for the molten steel: First a part of the official theory, as CNN Garrick Utley promotes this theory on the night on 01/12/9, later dismissed as fiction, although the FEMA appendix C "limited metallurgical examinations" found steel corroded like swiss cheese, formed eutectic mixtures with sulfur and was molten at 1000� C, the NIST chose to overlook that, and John Gross denies molten steel outright.
Steve Bishop | 10:49 a.m. May 4, 2008
In regard to 9/11, I'd also like to see coverage of Sibel Edmond's
story. That has tremendous implications for our country that need to be dealt
with.
Googe: "let sibel edmonds speak"
Also, a big thank you to the Deseret News and Tad Walch for the courage to report this story in an objective way.
Googe: "let sibel edmonds speak"
Also, a big thank you to the Deseret News and Tad Walch for the courage to report this story in an objective way.
Rabitt | 10:50 a.m. May 4, 2008
Dennis Wrote: "Dar7yl, May-03-2008, why are you not aware of the fact that
molten steel was found pooled beneath ALL 3 collapsed WTC buildings?
It�s funny how during one of the most documented recovery/ clean-up efforts in American history, no one though to take a picture of, or to preserve any of that �molten� steel.
Dennis Wrote: "This steel remained molten for 17 weeks, regardless of constant, heavy dowsing with water. Please explain this phenomenon,�
Easy, the steel wasn�t molten. That is not to say that the debris pile wasn�t hot, it was. Fires were burnin under that pile for a long long time. The heat generated by those fires had no where to go, so Very hot temperatures within the debris pile is to be expected.
They didn�t flood the whole pile, so how much �Dowsing� the fires received is pure speculation on your part.
It�s funny how during one of the most documented recovery/ clean-up efforts in American history, no one though to take a picture of, or to preserve any of that �molten� steel.
Dennis Wrote: "This steel remained molten for 17 weeks, regardless of constant, heavy dowsing with water. Please explain this phenomenon,�
Easy, the steel wasn�t molten. That is not to say that the debris pile wasn�t hot, it was. Fires were burnin under that pile for a long long time. The heat generated by those fires had no where to go, so Very hot temperatures within the debris pile is to be expected.
They didn�t flood the whole pile, so how much �Dowsing� the fires received is pure speculation on your part.
rabbit | 10:53 a.m. May 4, 2008
Eric B Wrote: "It is rather difficult to explain how the steel reinforced
concrete pillars, all 47, were able to collapse straight down through
themselves, and all the concrete pulverized into a fine dust. A whole lot of
compression. "
What are you talking about? Concrete pillars? there were no "concrete pillars" used in the WTC towers. Please get your facts straight BEFORE you try to peddle your lies.
What are you talking about? Concrete pillars? there were no "concrete pillars" used in the WTC towers. Please get your facts straight BEFORE you try to peddle your lies.
Darth Vader | 10:55 a.m. May 4, 2008
("The pulverized concrete, the molten metal, the very small refuse pile
which should have been many stories tall, all point not to explosives but to
Directed Energy Weapons. Also solves the problem of whistle blowers, not much of
a crew needed.")
Behold the power of the death star!!!
Behold the power of the death star!!!
zica | 10:59 a.m. May 4, 2008
George Kramer,
The reason I'm citing what NIST has reported is to show those who keep talking about the crystal structure of the steel changing that the temps were not reported to be that high by NIST. You are using double speak by supporting what is unsubstantiated.
I believe that NIST did NOT want to report the true temperatures found in the destruction. Those that cannot be sourced to the fire, but can be sourced to thermate.
So the reason I use the NIST facts is to debunk its supporters. You can't have it both ways.
Again, please try to reconcile these points in your support of the NIST explanation:
-- NIST says steel was not hot enough ("These [steel] microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600�C for any
significant time"
-- Destruction at free fall speed also reported by NIST
-- Newton's Third Law evaded by NIST because they didn't talk about anything that happened after the towers were "poised for collapse".
The reason I'm citing what NIST has reported is to show those who keep talking about the crystal structure of the steel changing that the temps were not reported to be that high by NIST. You are using double speak by supporting what is unsubstantiated.
I believe that NIST did NOT want to report the true temperatures found in the destruction. Those that cannot be sourced to the fire, but can be sourced to thermate.
So the reason I use the NIST facts is to debunk its supporters. You can't have it both ways.
Again, please try to reconcile these points in your support of the NIST explanation:
-- NIST says steel was not hot enough ("These [steel] microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600�C for any
significant time"
-- Destruction at free fall speed also reported by NIST
-- Newton's Third Law evaded by NIST because they didn't talk about anything that happened after the towers were "poised for collapse".
Stop Bush Wrote: | 11:01 a.m. May 4, 2008
"Everyone, including potential terrorists, knows that no plane is allowed
anywhere near the Pentagon, the Pentagon is surrounded by airforce bases, and
equipped with anti-aircraft missile launchers."
The main runway at Reagan National Airport is about a mile from the Pentagon. airliners landing at this airport pass within a quarter mile of the pentagon.
Get a clue.
The main runway at Reagan National Airport is about a mile from the Pentagon. airliners landing at this airport pass within a quarter mile of the pentagon.
Get a clue.
Steve Bishop | 11:05 a.m. May 4, 2008
Some people love to throw in red herrings such as "Directed Energy
Weapons". Stick to scientifically provable facts. Do the research. Show
me the data. Don't go make stuff up.
At least Dr. Jones is refusing to get caught up in the ridiculous notions that some people present.
At least Dr. Jones is refusing to get caught up in the ridiculous notions that some people present.
Reality Knocking | 11:21 a.m. May 4, 2008
- - - NIST says steel was not hot enough ("These [steel] microstructures
show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600�C
for any
significant time"- - -
Not really. The Steel samples that NIST was able to positively identify as being from the fire floors was a very, very small sample of the total. Thus it is not accurate to extraolate this data for the entire floor. You are trying to prove a negative, which can not be done.
-- Destruction at free fall speed also reported by NIST
No, not really. Here is what NIST actually said: �From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.�
significant time"- - -
Not really. The Steel samples that NIST was able to positively identify as being from the fire floors was a very, very small sample of the total. Thus it is not accurate to extraolate this data for the entire floor. You are trying to prove a negative, which can not be done.
-- Destruction at free fall speed also reported by NIST
No, not really. Here is what NIST actually said: �From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.�
Knock Knock, - sanity here | 11:22 a.m. May 4, 2008
- - - Newton's Third Law evaded by NIST because they didn't talk about anything that happened after the towers were "poised for collapse". - - -
You don�t even understand what Newton�s third law is.
Energy Weapons? | 11:23 a.m. May 4, 2008
Dr. Woods says that that directed energy weapons were used.
Which Dr. is right?
Which Dr. is right?
stone | 11:25 a.m. May 4, 2008
@ George kramer , although i agree with you that there are many many more
aspects to 911 that are important , Dr Jones`s area of knowledge is science and
i think he is doing a fantastic job of proving that there is very good reason to
suspect that explosives had to be used to bring down the buildings ,and i think
he is wise to stick to the area that is his specialty.
i would also like to point out something that is seldom mentioned and that is that the entire steel structure was a massive "heat-sink" and therefore the heat would have been very quickly spread away from the area of heating .this would mean that you would require an enormous amount of energy (much more than was available with aviation fuel)to even weaken the steel let alone melt it.
firemen had reached the south tower`s fires and said on the radio that they only needed 2 lines to knock down 2 small pockets of fire ,2 minutes later the building exploded/collapsed , and go look at the picture of the top of the tower leaning at about 40 degrees.
also read "crossing the rubicon" by Mike Ruppert
i would also like to point out something that is seldom mentioned and that is that the entire steel structure was a massive "heat-sink" and therefore the heat would have been very quickly spread away from the area of heating .this would mean that you would require an enormous amount of energy (much more than was available with aviation fuel)to even weaken the steel let alone melt it.
firemen had reached the south tower`s fires and said on the radio that they only needed 2 lines to knock down 2 small pockets of fire ,2 minutes later the building exploded/collapsed , and go look at the picture of the top of the tower leaning at about 40 degrees.
also read "crossing the rubicon" by Mike Ruppert
vanity press | 11:26 a.m. May 4, 2008
- - - "There you go; Professor Jones is intelligent and personable. And he
raises a good point: Those of you discounting him and calling him names probably
haven't even read the paper that the article is based on.
Well the 3 people who peer reviewed the paper read it and approved it. Can anyone criticizing this decent man bring themselves to do the same? "- - -
Do you mean the vanity "journal" that published the article after Jones paid $600?
Well the 3 people who peer reviewed the paper read it and approved it. Can anyone criticizing this decent man bring themselves to do the same? "- - -
Do you mean the vanity "journal" that published the article after Jones paid $600?
WTC 7 | 11:29 a.m. May 4, 2008
The video I watched showed the total time from the start of the collapse (when
the penthouse fell) to the end of the collapse to be about 18 seconds.
How is that "Free Fall?"
How is that "Free Fall?"
Frank Demartini | 11:40 a.m. May 4, 2008
mr. Demartini, radioed shortly before the building collapse that killed him that
the core structure was in in danger of collapse.
Stoney | 11:41 a.m. May 4, 2008
Steel is a lousy conducter of heat.
Strucutral engineer? | 11:43 a.m. May 4, 2008
Steve Jones has never studied strucutral engineering, and it shows.
Steverino | 11:47 a.m. May 4, 2008
Steve Jones Wrote:
- - - - Did those raising objections actually read the peer-reviewed paper discussed in Tad Walch's commendable article? You can read this paper in the Open Civil Engineering Journal. (Google Fourteen Points Bentham Scientific.) Shouldn't one read the paper before attacking the authors? Why won't you confront the evidence raised in this technical paper rather than calling me "loony"? - - - -
I do believe that several people have confronted and shredded your so-called evidence already.
Why don't you stop by the JREF forum, or the Screw loose change eforums to support your theories?
Scared?
- - - - Did those raising objections actually read the peer-reviewed paper discussed in Tad Walch's commendable article? You can read this paper in the Open Civil Engineering Journal. (Google Fourteen Points Bentham Scientific.) Shouldn't one read the paper before attacking the authors? Why won't you confront the evidence raised in this technical paper rather than calling me "loony"? - - - -
I do believe that several people have confronted and shredded your so-called evidence already.
Why don't you stop by the JREF forum, or the Screw loose change eforums to support your theories?
Scared?
stone | 11:51 a.m. May 4, 2008
stoney i challenge you to hold one end of a piece of steel and heat the other
end , when your hand recovers from the burns come back and tell me that steel
doesn`t conduct heat .
i have worked with metals for 20 years ,soldering,casting and welding more recently ,with respect you do not know what you are talking about.
i have worked with metals for 20 years ,soldering,casting and welding more recently ,with respect you do not know what you are talking about.
zica | 11:53 a.m. May 4, 2008
Sanity and Reality,
Misnomers aside, do you have eyes? You honestly believe that "(roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse." Anybody? Hello?
Also, as far as proving a negative, you want to suggest that all of this steel was so hot it lost its strength and all at the same exact moment for a symetrical collapse (3rd law of motion says the stuff would probably fall to the side and not straight down through the path of most resistance). NIST reporting evidence of steel that was not hot enough and was near the collapse zone should be very discouraging to a supporter of this theory. Think about the steel 20, 30, 50, 70 floors down. You think that was hot enough, but not the steel near the impact zone? That's not reality, it's fantasy.
Misnomers aside, do you have eyes? You honestly believe that "(roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse." Anybody? Hello?
Also, as far as proving a negative, you want to suggest that all of this steel was so hot it lost its strength and all at the same exact moment for a symetrical collapse (3rd law of motion says the stuff would probably fall to the side and not straight down through the path of most resistance). NIST reporting evidence of steel that was not hot enough and was near the collapse zone should be very discouraging to a supporter of this theory. Think about the steel 20, 30, 50, 70 floors down. You think that was hot enough, but not the steel near the impact zone? That's not reality, it's fantasy.
Thanks Chris Bollyn | 11:52 a.m. May 4, 2008
One person who has been kicked around hard for his unrelenting pursuit of 9/11
Truth is Christopher Bollyn. This man deserves the gratitude of every patriotic
American, and every honest person on this planet. Thanks Chris! We're
turning the tide.
Steven T. Hatton
Steven T. Hatton
Ernie | 11:53 a.m. May 4, 2008
If explosives were used to bring down the buildings in addition to the planes,
wouldn't someone have seen the people attaching the explosives to the
frame?
zica | 12:03 p.m. May 4, 2008
WTC7,
Please let me know where to find this 18 second WTC7 collapse video.
I found videos from CBS and NBC at wtc7 dot net and they don't look anywhere near 18 seconds. Is that their video trickery?
Please let me know where to find this 18 second WTC7 collapse video.
I found videos from CBS and NBC at wtc7 dot net and they don't look anywhere near 18 seconds. Is that their video trickery?
Erik | 12:04 p.m. May 4, 2008
Even if Dr. Jones' research producing no evidence, it is still worthwhile
to investigate why the building collapsed. Simply assuming that the building
collapsed due to the other buildings is simplistic and unreasonable. A disaster
of this magnitude deserves many separate investigations. Good luck.
Stoney | 12:08 p.m. May 4, 2008
- - - stoney i challenge you to hold one end of a piece of steel and heat the
other end , when your hand recovers from the burns come back and tell me that
steel doesn`t conduct heat . - - -
Do you mean like in the one video where Steve Jones, himself holds a piece of metal in his hands and heats it with a cigarette lighter?
LOL LOL LOL
Do you mean like in the one video where Steve Jones, himself holds a piece of metal in his hands and heats it with a cigarette lighter?
LOL LOL LOL
Truth to much for BYU | 12:08 p.m. May 4, 2008
BYU once again showing their true colors. There are some god people there, but
there are some of the most prideful people within the organization you would
ever meet.
Shame on BYU for "firing" Dr Jones.
Shame on BYU for "firing" Dr Jones.
Sneaky Jimmy | 12:16 p.m. May 4, 2008
RE: Ernie,
"If explosives were used to bring down the buildings in addition to the planes, wouldn't someone have seen the people attaching the explosives to the frame?"
Ernie! C'mon George Bush's brother planted them and then destroyed the surveillance tapes.
G BUSH IS THE ANTI CHRIST!
"If explosives were used to bring down the buildings in addition to the planes, wouldn't someone have seen the people attaching the explosives to the frame?"
Ernie! C'mon George Bush's brother planted them and then destroyed the surveillance tapes.
G BUSH IS THE ANTI CHRIST!
Alex | 12:24 p.m. May 4, 2008
Jones' "paper" is really a letter listing points on which he
agrees with NIST. Moreover, the "journal" has only 5 published
articles, has no offline circulation, and they charge authors several hundred
dollars to publish. Not only is his "paper" a fraud, but the journal
appears to be a scam.
As for Jones' "research", it basically consists of misquoting people and making baseless assertions. He claims that NIST said "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse", but fails to mention that NIST DID provide an explanation of the collapse. What they can't do is provide a full MODEL of the collapse since the numerous unknown (and unknowable) variables make such a model impossible.
Another example of his dishonesty is his insistence that iron spheres constitute proof of controlled demolition via "thermate". What he fails to mention is that thermate isn't used for demolition. More importantly, he fails to mention that his samples were collected AFTER a significant amount of the wreckage had been cut-apart using thermal lances,and thermal lances leave behind exactly the kind of residue which he collected.
Such dishonest behaviour from an "academic" is despicable. Jones' "theories" deserve only ridicule.
As for Jones' "research", it basically consists of misquoting people and making baseless assertions. He claims that NIST said "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse", but fails to mention that NIST DID provide an explanation of the collapse. What they can't do is provide a full MODEL of the collapse since the numerous unknown (and unknowable) variables make such a model impossible.
Another example of his dishonesty is his insistence that iron spheres constitute proof of controlled demolition via "thermate". What he fails to mention is that thermate isn't used for demolition. More importantly, he fails to mention that his samples were collected AFTER a significant amount of the wreckage had been cut-apart using thermal lances,and thermal lances leave behind exactly the kind of residue which he collected.
Such dishonest behaviour from an "academic" is despicable. Jones' "theories" deserve only ridicule.
arc | 12:33 p.m. May 4, 2008
WTC7 fell down. We don't know why - really. We do know why the 1st 2 bldgs.
fell down. Dr. Jones is assuming that the same people are involved with all 3
bldgs. Do you know what you get when you assume?
The 1st 2 fell because of the planes - can you say terrorists.
The 3rd bldg. fell because there either was something in WTC7 that we don't know or someone caused it to go down for other reasons.
I personally spoke to a structural engineer that investigated the bldgs afterwards. He was very comfortable about why the 1st 2 bldgs. fell. (Planes) He had no real good explanation as to why the 3rd bldg. fell.
Dr. Jones is looking like a fool, because he will not even consider this piece of truth.
The 1st 2 fell because of the planes - can you say terrorists.
The 3rd bldg. fell because there either was something in WTC7 that we don't know or someone caused it to go down for other reasons.
I personally spoke to a structural engineer that investigated the bldgs afterwards. He was very comfortable about why the 1st 2 bldgs. fell. (Planes) He had no real good explanation as to why the 3rd bldg. fell.
Dr. Jones is looking like a fool, because he will not even consider this piece of truth.
The buildings fell..... | 12:33 p.m. May 4, 2008
Because of Physics, pure and simple. There were no explosions, no steel melted,
only weakened by the sheer pressure of the buildings and the jet fuel. The
buildings coming down were enormous destructive forces that destroyed much in
close proximity, including, after several hours, Tower 7. That is not
simplistic nor unreasonable. Those towers were two of the largest manmade
structures on the planet. It is simplistic and unreasonable to ignore the mass
of physical law in play that day.
God Bless the victims of 9/11 and their families. The tide of terrorists and conspiracy nuts needs to be kept back.
We will never forget.
God Bless the victims of 9/11 and their families. The tide of terrorists and conspiracy nuts needs to be kept back.
We will never forget.
stone | 12:35 p.m. May 4, 2008
stoney says -Do you mean like in the one video where Steve Jones, himself holds
a piece of metal in his hands and heats it with a cigarette lighter?
LOL LOL LOL
are you really seriously telling me that you believe that steel does not conduct heat ?? if thats true then you need to go back to classes.
if you only use a cigarrette lighter you are not applying much heat/energy , it would take more time to heat the metal than if you use a blow torch ,then it would take seconds before you have to release it .
like i said ,try it .
LOL LOL LOL
are you really seriously telling me that you believe that steel does not conduct heat ?? if thats true then you need to go back to classes.
if you only use a cigarrette lighter you are not applying much heat/energy , it would take more time to heat the metal than if you use a blow torch ,then it would take seconds before you have to release it .
like i said ,try it .
zica | 12:40 p.m. May 4, 2008
Alex,
Wrong. Bzzzz.
NIST provided an explanation of what happened until the time that the towers were poised for collapse and then said they didn't need to investigate any further because we could all see what happened. Then they changed their tune from pancaking to floor weakening and pulling in from the outside. Their consideration of the core columns which bore most of the weight has been conveniently negligible.
Another point you might want to consider is that the iron rich spheres are found in the dust collected within 20 minutes of the collapse, so your thermal lances didn't produce the chemical signature of thermate.
Please try again.
Wrong. Bzzzz.
NIST provided an explanation of what happened until the time that the towers were poised for collapse and then said they didn't need to investigate any further because we could all see what happened. Then they changed their tune from pancaking to floor weakening and pulling in from the outside. Their consideration of the core columns which bore most of the weight has been conveniently negligible.
Another point you might want to consider is that the iron rich spheres are found in the dust collected within 20 minutes of the collapse, so your thermal lances didn't produce the chemical signature of thermate.
Please try again.
Alex | 12:55 p.m. May 4, 2008
Zica, you're lying. The NIST report covers in detail the exact collapse
mechanism. And Jones certainly didn't collect his samples 20 minutes after
collapse. My earlier comment still stands.
Sitting-Bull | 12:56 p.m. May 4, 2008
>What he fails to mention is that thermate isn't used for demolition.
More importantly, he fails to mention that his samples were collected AFTER a
significant amount of the wreckage had been cut-apart using thermal lances,and
thermal lances leave behind exactly the kind of residue which he
collected.<
Wrong on all points, I smell the disinfo taste. Thermate, even Nanothermate, is used as incendiary explosive. There are patents on it, otherwise google JGranier_dissertation_FINAL, there is even a military granate filled with thermite.
The latest samples were collected on 9/11 itself. Stop selling lies to the public.
To the one who claims that NIST did not chose the right probes. This is untrue, every steel plate and truss and column in the WTC has a extraordinary number and NIST did in fact collected especially probes from the fire area. From where else please?
Wrong on all points, I smell the disinfo taste. Thermate, even Nanothermate, is used as incendiary explosive. There are patents on it, otherwise google JGranier_dissertation_FINAL, there is even a military granate filled with thermite.
The latest samples were collected on 9/11 itself. Stop selling lies to the public.
To the one who claims that NIST did not chose the right probes. This is untrue, every steel plate and truss and column in the WTC has a extraordinary number and NIST did in fact collected especially probes from the fire area. From where else please?
Spencer W. Morgan | 1:01 p.m. May 4, 2008
Dr. Jones' research is solid and the postulation that the towers were
brought down by thermate-based incendiaries or explosives (thermate can be
either) or a combination of both is the only one that explains many observations
including what Dr. Jones' own research has found in the dust residue.
The scientific examination of the collapses of the towers is only ONE area of facts and historical parrallel that is highly inconvenient to the official mythology.
Do most Americans realize that there has NEVER been an official explanation of why building 7 fell? NIST was supposed to realease its findings last year and never did. The report is now due this year. The 9/11 Commission didn't even mention building 7 at all, much less explain it.
By the way this is not a partisan thing. I voted for Bush in 2000 and I am still a registered Republican and very conservative politically.
Google Video search these terms if you want more information:
"Steven Jones PNAC"
"9/11 Coincidence Theory"
The scientific examination of the collapses of the towers is only ONE area of facts and historical parrallel that is highly inconvenient to the official mythology.
Do most Americans realize that there has NEVER been an official explanation of why building 7 fell? NIST was supposed to realease its findings last year and never did. The report is now due this year. The 9/11 Commission didn't even mention building 7 at all, much less explain it.
By the way this is not a partisan thing. I voted for Bush in 2000 and I am still a registered Republican and very conservative politically.
Google Video search these terms if you want more information:
"Steven Jones PNAC"
"9/11 Coincidence Theory"
kamandi | 1:12 p.m. May 4, 2008
To people like Alex who find it difficult to believe that a group of people
involved in a conspiracy of this magnitude could keep quiet, please consider
this:
The 9/11 Commission Report has the military�s third official timeline for their response on 9/11. Timeline one (that there was no military response and no jets scrambled during the whole two hour period)only lasted for a few days after 9/11. Then came timeline number 2, which lasted for three years from 2001 until the 9/11 Commision Report came out in 2004. Hundreds of high ranking military personnel during these three years testified and spoke publicly in support the details of timeline 2. Timeline 2 had us believe that jets were scrambled, but too late to save the day. Then came the 9/11 Commission with timeline 3, which has radically different times than timeline 2.
My point is this - if you believe that the 9/11 Commission is the final truth, then you believe that everyone who spoke about the other two timelines engaged in a conspiracy of lies for a three year period and were never caught or found out. THEY LIED ABOUT 9/11 NO MATTER WHICH TIMELINE YOU BELIEVE.
The 9/11 Commission Report has the military�s third official timeline for their response on 9/11. Timeline one (that there was no military response and no jets scrambled during the whole two hour period)only lasted for a few days after 9/11. Then came timeline number 2, which lasted for three years from 2001 until the 9/11 Commision Report came out in 2004. Hundreds of high ranking military personnel during these three years testified and spoke publicly in support the details of timeline 2. Timeline 2 had us believe that jets were scrambled, but too late to save the day. Then came the 9/11 Commission with timeline 3, which has radically different times than timeline 2.
My point is this - if you believe that the 9/11 Commission is the final truth, then you believe that everyone who spoke about the other two timelines engaged in a conspiracy of lies for a three year period and were never caught or found out. THEY LIED ABOUT 9/11 NO MATTER WHICH TIMELINE YOU BELIEVE.
Eric | 1:28 p.m. May 4, 2008
Thank you Dr. Jones for working to resolve the valid open questions surrounding
9/11. The fact of the matter is that WTC Building #7, which was NOT hit by an
airplane, still managed to fall to the ground in a neatly designed collapse. It
is no wonder then, why NIST STILL hasn't released their report on WTC #7.
Not even the government can explain this one way -- A fully sound steel
reinforced skyscraper imploded into the ground despite not being hit by either
of the two planes.
One interesting theory is that Flight 93, which crashed into a Pennsylvania field, was destined to hit WTC #7. Had Flight 93 hit WTC #7, it would be much more difficult to question the collapse of that building. But instead, the plane crashed into the Pennsylvania field and yet WTC #7 still fell to the ground. This raises strong and valid suspicions that WTC #7 was set up to implode prior to 9/11. Note that this does not mean the "government" did it. Terrorists could have perpetrated the entire crime. What we do know is that the "government" is not telling us the whole story.
One interesting theory is that Flight 93, which crashed into a Pennsylvania field, was destined to hit WTC #7. Had Flight 93 hit WTC #7, it would be much more difficult to question the collapse of that building. But instead, the plane crashed into the Pennsylvania field and yet WTC #7 still fell to the ground. This raises strong and valid suspicions that WTC #7 was set up to implode prior to 9/11. Note that this does not mean the "government" did it. Terrorists could have perpetrated the entire crime. What we do know is that the "government" is not telling us the whole story.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Senator says Afghan surge needed 8:56 p.m.
- Matthews passes new Jazz tests 8:53 p.m.
- Max Hall issues apology 8:46 p.m.
- Montreal Alouettes win Grey Cup 8:40 p.m.
- Rivalry dishes out talking points 8:32 p.m.
- Hall's pain reflects self betrayal 8:23 p.m.
- Stitt's free throws lift Clemson 8:10 p.m.
- Spurs drop slumping 76ers 8:05 p.m.
- Brooks, Landry power Rockets 7:55 p.m.
- Woods gives his side of the story 7:53 p.m.
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
- BYU is champion of the state
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
- Credit Coug defense for win
- Field goals, penalties doomed Utes
- Cougar defense rose to occasion
- Marriage definitions vary widely
- Banged up Jazz get best of Blazers
- Jones' joy for life remembered
- Fantasy is reality for BYU professor
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
833 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime469
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- BYU is champion of the state135
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies117
- Cave to be sealed with body inside116
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin113
- Rivalry Week is highly profane90
- Hall's legacy measured today79
- Y. focused on 10-win season74
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
(Yawn) This is such a non-story in rivalry sports towns across America. This...
wow! you guys are really over thinking what he had to say. get over it and...
As Adam stated he is a performer, he is not a baby sitter, with his ego and...
BCS Scoreboard: Utah 2-0 Boise State 1-0 (and soon to be 2-0) BYU...
This is a major black mark on Max Hall. He should have given Utah respect...
Very well written and to the point. Now if only Max reads it AND...
Well said.
Is this journalism? or simply a rant by a secret Ute fan? To be honest this...
This article is awesome and truly reflects what was going through Max Hall's...
Utahs only D1 classy team USU.
Advertisements
With each day that passes more and more people are not buying the "official" theory. Maybe that is what George Bush was trying to say; "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."
"In times of change, the Patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
~Mark Twain