Science with an Axe to Grind?
Steven Jones is still making headlines with his theories that previously planted implosion detonations brought down the three world trade center buildings rather than commercial airplanes full of passengers hijacked and piloted by Islamicist terrorists.
Jones is part of a group of professors and less well-educated conspiracy theorists who claim, among other things, that the “World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions” and “the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.” The academic credentials of Jones and other professors involved in this campaign “to establish what really happened on 9/11″ have energized the conspiracy theory community, according to CNN:
Members of the conspiracy community “practically worship the ground [Jones] walks on because he’s seen as a scientist who is preaching to their side,” said FR Greening, a Canadian chemist who has written several papers rebutting the science used by September 11 conspiracy theorists.
FR Greening also stated with regard to Jones’s research that “It’s science, but it’s politically motivated. It’s science with an ax to grind, and therefore it’s not really science.”
A spokesman for the Association of American University Professors also implied that academic freedom might not necessarily justify the professors in this group expressing their views. Although “[f]aculty can express any opinion outside the classroom,” CNN reports Robert Bowen as saying,
with academic freedom comes academic responsibility. And that requires them to teach the truth of their discipline, and the truth does not include conspiracy theories, or flat Earth theories, or Holocaust denial theories.
It is interesting that the general secretary of the American Association of University Professors places a limit on the reaches of academic freedom.
Even though Greening, Bowen, and other critics of the conspiracy theorists such as Jones appear to be equating their campaign with Holocaust denial and the Flat Earth Society, Jones has stated that “I have not run into many who have read my paper and said it’s just all hogwash.” My guess is that Jones hasn’t been reading the Bloggernacle Times, which has featured several discussions about his theories, since he is a Latter-day Saint teaching at Brigham Young University, after all.
But Greening and others say that the linchpin of Jones’s theory — the molten metal found at the sites of the collapsed twin towers which Jones claims appears to be thermite and therefore evidence that the towers were part of a controlled demolition — is weak since there are numerous alternative explanations, including simply that the molten metal present was aluminium from the airplanes.
Despite the apparent view of the American Association of University Professors that academic freedom only goes so far (i.e. not reaching unpopular or repugnant ideas), CNN reports that BYU’s physics department and engineering school have issued statements distancing themselves from Jones’ work, but he says they have not interfered. Apparently, BYU’s physics department and engineering school have not gotten the Bloggernacle and DAMU memos that BYU is supposed to be unaware of the concept of academic freedom.
Whatever the merits of Jones’s conspiracy theories about 9/11, can Greening’s statement in opposition to Jones’s theories be normative? Is science with an axe to grind not really science? I am unsure whether I am willing to endorse that view, even in a bid to discredit Jones’s crusade to prove that Islamicist terrorists did not bring down the World Trade Centers. If Greening’s claim is true on some fundamental level, then what are we to do with the “science” behind global warming, fetal viability, whether death by lethal injection is painful, theories of human evolution, and a host of other issues which are likewise “science with an axe to grind”?
Does the cynical use of knowledge and/or “science” for political purposes — whether by scientists themselves or by others with their own agendas — invalidate the science itself?
I don’t think one can say science pursued for political reasons isn’t science anymore than one can say that say medical studies attempting to justify a new commercial drug aren’t science. However it has been clearly demonstrated that confirmation bias affects such medical studies and science hasn’t grappled with how to deal with this yet. I’d say the same with regards to politics.
I think though that there are plenty of scientific disciplines with such issues. Consider the pro/anti genetically modified food studies. Studies regarding global warming. Studies regarding so-called “God genes” or cognitive studies of religion. Studies regarding the effects of sex education. Studies regarding various sorts of birth control. One could go on.
I think there is ample reason to read such studies skeptically and a lot of call for repeated studies. But I don’t think the danger of political bias means they aren’t science.
Comment by Clark Goble — August 7, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
Good science is good science, no matter what the politics.
However, when it comes to science and axe-grinding, there are two problems:
1. If the scientists themselves are grinding the axe, then the results of their research may be biased (either unconsciously or deliberately) by decisions made during the course of that research.
2. Even if the science is done well, other people with axes to grind may misuse the science by (either unconsciously or deliberately) distorting the findings in order to support their positions.
In case 1, it is possible that the science itself may be deemed invalid because the bias affected the research. In case 2, however, the science is not rendered invalid merely because others use it improperly.
Comment by Eric James Stone — August 7, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
Yes, what Eric and Clark said.
Comment by J. Stapley — August 7, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
Certainly the science needs to stand on its own merits, and must be reproducible, otherwise it ain’t science. That goes as much for the NIST report and the 9/11 commision report as for any alternative explanations.
It’s tough, though, because if the basic premise central to most such explanations (that the government helped/allowed the attacks) is true, then indeed the Official Story itself is politically motivated. Citizens probably won’t reelect leaders who kill them.
Obviously there are many kooky ideas out there, but I feel there likely are a few gems of truth. Furthermore, I would sooner trust a seasoned scientist over a journalist or a UFO chaser to find and report them. [I'd probably trust any of them over a politician!]
I know Steve Jones quite well. I’ve been his student, his tenant, his dinner guest, and his friend. Several of his new friends rub me the wrong way, but then again Steve seems to be more careful than most. His latest response to criticisms/questions is here:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/AnsQJones1.pdf
The strongest things (in my mind) he says involve the elemental analysis of a sample of WTC previously-molten steel (finding superthermite evidence including Manganese, Sulfur, and 1,3-DPP), and criticisms of the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports.
I’d love to be more skeptical, but it’s getting tougher…
Comment by mistaben — August 7, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
Not again! When is this Jones going to go away? Regarding “limits” on Academic Freedom, I think the issue is scope not limits. I don’t think academic freedom includes someone spouting insane positions. For example, a tenured scientist preaching against evolution based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics should have his tenure revoked. Likewise for Jones for promoting implausible conspiracy nonsense. I can’t get over the irony of BYU tolerating Jones, who’s doing real harm, while they’ll embarrass themselves for dropping someone else over trivial infractions. Is it just incompetence or does Jones have dirt on somebody high up?
Comment by Steve EM — August 8, 2006 @ 11:47 am
Steve EM,
Steve Jones first paper on this subject was peer reviewed, and so will be the second. Are all those peers out to lunch, or is there a real mystery here?
I don’t know what kind of background you have in science, but I would love to hear an explanation of how the second law of thermodynamics is a consequence of any known equations of motion. Are you aware of the inseparable relationship between thermodynamics and epistemology? Or if free will actually exists, what are the dynamical consequences?
Are you aware that there are no known laws of physics that can explain abiogenesis? That every informed non-interventionist commentator is hoping for the discovery of the new laws of autonomous self-creation? So far, origin of life biology is a science without any science.
Comment by Steve EM — August 8, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
That last comment was by Mark Butler. My mistake.
Comment by Mark Butler — August 8, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Mark, what a strange mistake.
Comment by john f. — August 8, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Since asked, I’m a physical scientist with degrees from BYU and Michigan and am presently employed as technical director for a private firm. My beef with the Jones affair is two fold. First, as a BYU alum, BYU’s embarrassing actions the last few years, including their toleration of a nut case like Jones, have tarnished my undergrad degree and I highly resent it. Second, given my expertise in passive fire protection systems, I know for a fact no conspiracy theory is needed to explain steel buildings collapsing due to hydrocarbon fires. I go with Ockham on this one.
I won’t enter into an evolution debate as it’s a non-issue that was put to bed along time ago. Nor do I get concern over evolution by some people of faith since I see no conflict between evolution and faith.
Comment by Steve EM — August 8, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
This is a not a situation where Dr. Jones is claiming to have been present on the grassy knoll when Oswald shot kennedy and can exonerate Oswald as the lone gunman. Nor is it a case where Dr. Jones helped intercept Japanese intelligence indicating their plans to bomb Pearl Harbor and did nothing to stop it. (These are just two incidents where the official story has been questioned.)
9/11 was an in your face for all to see reality that left many grabbing the mantle of patriotism and blind allegience before the dust could settle. While no one is falting our countries response to the events and rallying to the defense of our fallen, others like Dr. Jones looked at the evidence up close and decided to call an audible.
Read his position papers. Look at the documentary “Loose Change.” Really exam the reasons why building 7 collapsed without the aid of a commandeered plane of hijackers. That Dr. Jones has science on his side makes his arguments all the more compelling. That we also have a history of government misdeeds and questionable actions leaves the door wide open to possible complicity.
While there is no question that others will now wonder why Dr. Jones loves the terrorist and hates America for trying to be an honest voice for answers (which some of the fallen’s families want) says more about the oppressive climate that has originated since these events happened. The right thing to do isnt always popular now is it?
Comment by David — August 8, 2006 @ 9:20 pm
Yes, definitely a bizarre mistake, especially since I disagree more strongly with Steve about the applicability of statistical mechanics and information theory to the problem of abiogenesis than I do about the 9/11 thing.
I have a degree in physics from the U. from the year when Pons and Fleischmann (in the chemistry department) were doing the aneutronic cold fusion thing (an episode that Steve Jones of BYU, ironically enough, was openly criticizing) so I can appreciate the problem of perception. It just annoys me when people make highly controversial (in this case inflammatory) statements without leaving a clue as to a viable supporting argument.
Comment by Mark Butler — August 8, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
I don’t worry much about Jones tarnishing BYU’s reputation. Every very good school employs some people who stick out like nut-cases because they are “pushing the limits.” I suspect the schools like having them around (for the most part) because 1) it makes them look more open to new ideas and 2) any publicity is good publicity.
On another note, let no one accuse Mark of never trying to walk in another man’s shoes…
Comment by BrianJ — August 9, 2006 @ 8:03 am
Why is he a “nut case” simply because he goes against the mainstream ideas fed into our brains by the media? Science is about bring up questions and trying to find the answers. Galileo was a nut until his theories were accepted.
Comment by Zeke Voltage — August 9, 2006 @ 8:18 am
Notice that the AAUP rep does not say that the AAUP would support institutions dismissing tenured faculty whom they feel are not teaching “the truth of their discipline”. Thus, Steve EM’s oft-repeated demand that BYU fire Jones puts him out of harmony with the AAUP and the many research institutions uncensured by the AAUP who don’t fire their screwballs (e.g., Holocaust deniers). Accrediting agencies recognize the right of religious institutions like BYU to fire tenured faculty for religious reasons, but even they’d object if BYU were to fire Jones.
Comment by Chris Grant — August 9, 2006 @ 8:37 am
Mark I wonder if you’ve read Jones’ paper. And I wonder if you’ve read the FEMA and NIST reports. I have and as a professional civil engineer I have to conclude that Jones’ hypothesis is at least plausible based on the evidence. WTC 7 is a total anomaly that the government still has not given is final report on. WTC 7 was not even mentioned in the 9/11 report. This building collapsed at a rate of free fall accounting for air resistance straight down with a debris pile no more than 70-ft outside its footprint. As for the Twin Towers, it extremely odd that there was molten steel found in the basement months after the collapse. The NIST concluded that the steel was no hotter than 300 deg C anywhere. Quit insufficient to melt steel or even weaken it enough to cause complete global fail. The evidence goes on and on and on. And why in the hell won’t the NIST release all of its work product, in particularly the finite element collapse visualization models?
Comment by David H (PE) — August 9, 2006 @ 11:31 am
David, don’t you think the huge gaping hole in the side of WTC 7 might have had something to do with its collapse? Much more than a planned conspiracy of demolition that happened to correspond exactly to within a few hours of when some Al Queda terrorists flew two planes into the other buildings? While we can question the science, I think we have to take into consideration external issues when questioning whether something radical was taking place.
Comment by Clark Goble — August 9, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
Yes, I’ve heard of this gapping hole. I’ve never seen any pictures of it though. But let’s assume that there was in fact a big gapping hole on the side WTC 7 facing the Towers, and let’s assume then that there were a number steel perimeter columns that were totally severed and this caused the building to collapse. That still does not explain WTC falling symmetrically to the ground in 6.6 seconds. If the perimeter columns were severed then failure should have occurred on that side of the building. It’s hard to imagine such a complete failure in such a symmetrical and rapid manner. Also the FEMA report indicated that the walls of WTC fell in on themselves. It’s quite inconsistent. And it doesn’t explain the molten steel also found at WTC 7. I can dismiss about half of the evidence but there comes a point were if you want to uphold the laws of physics, one has to admit that it at least looks suspicious. Finally, I totally agree that the idea of pre-planted explosives is hard to imagine and it sounds logistically impossible. But the preponderance of physical evidence would suggest otherwise.
Comment by David H (PE) — August 9, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
This FR Greening fellow is ellusive. I cannot find his work anywhere on the internet, but I do find his name cited in an article which has really made the rounds on Fox, CNN, and every other news outlet.
In any case, I can’t help noticing that one of his arguments refuting Jones was specifically addressed by Jones in his article. Greening says that an alternative explanation to the existence of molten metal at the WTC site is that it is molten alluminum. However, Jones specifically ruled this out, saying that photos and eye-witness testimony point to molten metal that glowed yellow/gold/orange — a color not attained by alluminum at any temperature (but consistent with molten steel melted by thermite explosion). I am not a scientist and I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it seems easily verifiable.
I would also like to say that many of the above arguments give the impression of refusting Jones on first principles, and not on any engagement with his easy to find papers. It seems many people believe that conspiracy theory is an illegitimate category in every case. Are such people arguing that governments are incabable of lying, manipulating events, or working in secrecy?
Comment by Hugh D'Apostrophe — August 9, 2006 @ 11:37 pm
I eventually did fine FR Greening’s paper here:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Comment by Hugh D'Apostrophe — August 9, 2006 @ 11:56 pm
http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
This is a link which contains a video clip from a PBS documentary featuring Larry Silverstein, the owner/ director of the WTC at the time of the attacks. He candidly admits in this interview that he made the decision to bring down WTC tower number 7. The fact that this hasn’t received more publicity is absolutely astonishing.
Give it a view and try then try to refute the claim that this particular building was brought down deliberately.
Please reply with any comments to mtraviswhite@yahoo.com
(p.s. the website where I located the clip is far from credible, however, I have seen the complete documentary and can confirm that this clip is unaltered.)
Comment by m. Travis white — August 10, 2006 @ 2:38 am
I’m not going to make too much of a fuss, as this has been beaten to death. But here’s a video that takes news reports of eyewitness accounts of the “explosions” that were heard as the towers cam down. It’s pretty amazing–no desks, no chairs, no computers, no telephones were found. Cars in the area were overturned. Complete destruction.
I just wish there was an independent investigation and also that we could see the proof that Al-Qaeda did this. There are so many stories that were reported that day, that have never been revisited.
Comment by Tim J. — August 10, 2006 @ 10:05 am
I don’t think he has an axe to grind. I think he really believes it and feels it’s an important message.
It would be if it were true, which I don’t believe.
Comment by annegb — August 10, 2006 @ 10:14 am
Didn’t Osama bin Laden admit that his terrorists had hijacked the planes and rammed them into the World Trade Centers?
Comment by john f. — August 10, 2006 @ 10:22 am
The video in which bin Laden supposedly admits this doesn’t really appear to be binLaden. And, as a matter of fact, bin Laden had actually denied any involvement in 9/11 within a few days after the attack–which isn’t very terrorrist-like.
Comment by Tim J. — August 10, 2006 @ 11:29 am
So the U.S. government did it?
Comment by john f. — August 10, 2006 @ 11:42 am
I don’t know. Is it likely? Probably not. But is it likely that a bunch of guys who were previously training on monkey bars (that shot always kills me) were able to steer two HUGE airliners into their targets without problems? Flying a jet cannot be that easy, especially without the help of someone onthe ground. Even the “hijackers” flight instructor is on record as saying that they were not good pilots. And the maneuver that it would have taken to hit the Pentagon could have only been performed by a well-seasoned pilot. Read the reports.
I also don’t think it’s likely that our intelligence failed to warn us about the attacks.
That they have failed to find bin Laden after all these years when they knew of his exact location on Sept. 10, 2001.
That they failed in their attempt to link 9/11 with Iraq with WMD’s.
I don’t buy these failures.
There were also too many firsts:
First time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.
First time in aviation history a “black box” was not recovered from a crash site.
First time 9/11 calls were not released to the public.
These things just don’t add up for me.
Comment by Tim J. — August 10, 2006 @ 11:49 am
I don’t think it is implausible in the least to think that a team of Islamicist terrorist hijackers commandeered commercial jetliners and rammed them into the symbolic center of the West’s economic decadence (as Islamicists and Americans with the mini-Eichmann perspective would put it).
By the way, where is Ted Olson’s wife? Did the government kill her too? Pretty committed conspiracy to think that the solicitor general had his own wife killed to make us all believe that Islamicist terrorists and not the U.S. government attacked the World Trade Center.
Comment by john f. — August 10, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
I don’t think it implausible that they “would”, I think it implausible that they “could”.
Not every member of the government would have to be in on it, so saying that conspiracy theorists imply that Ted Olson sacrificed his wife is a bit of a leap.
Comment by Tim J. — August 10, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
Here is Bin Laden’s FBI wanted poster.
Notice anything missing? There is no mention whatsoever of 9/11. Why? because the FBI has said that there is no “hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks.”
And then…
“On July 3, 2006, it was reported that late 2005 the CIA closed a unit called Alec Station dedicated to the search for and capture of Osama Bin Laden. According to the New York Times, Michael Scheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official who was the first head of the unit, said the move reflected a view within the agency that “Mr. Bin Laden” was no longer the threat he once was.”
Comment by Tim J. — August 10, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
Wow. Pretty sinister.
Comment by john f. — August 10, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
Yes it is.
Comment by Tim J. — August 10, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
Let’s see. Two explanations:
1. Islamic terrorists slammed planes into buildings. This caused the buildings and surrounding building to collapse.
2. The government secretly plants bombs in some buildings and coordinate with terrorists by setting off the bombs around the time of the planes flying in the building. They later fake a video of Osama Bin Laden. And despite the constant leaks in the current government, this one never leaks out. There’s so much to gain by leaking this one out, that the fact no one has means it’s crap or else the conspiracy is so deep and so powerful it proceeds the current administration and goes back at least a decade or three.
There isn’t really a #3.
#1 is simpler and makes sense. #2 is much more complex, requires too much – and if true, means that living in almost any other country in the world would be preferable to living in the USA.
Anyone who claims to believe #2 and doesn’t immediately leave the USA is a hypocrite. If your government is really that evil – there’s no point in staying.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — August 11, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
re comment 32: ‘There isn’t really a #3.’
There is, of course a three, or at least important sub-sets of 1 and 2. For example, 1 could be true, and yet certain government officials could have ignored intelligence that pointed towards 1 happening; then those officials could have lied about it. That would still be a conspiracy worth uncovering. (I’m not saying that is what happened; my point is that Ivan’s attempt to boil this scenario down to 2 possibilities and claim that anyone who doesn’t believe #1 is a hypocrite who should leave the country is ridiculously simplistic.)
I don’t mind if conspiracy theorists’ theories are proved false or if Dr. Jones’ science is proved inaccurate. But I don’t think arguments like “Well, if the conspiracists are right, then that means Ted Olsen didn’t love his wife!” (when such a statement is totally addressed to the the periphery of the argument, so much so as to be irrelevant to the discussion) or ‘If they’re right, then America isn’t the greatest country in the world and I’ll have to move away!” are going to carry the day. So, while a conspiracy that says certain US officials orchestrated the attacks would be very difficult to prove and very unlikely, a conspiracy to cover-up the truth and hide mistakes that were made while spinning the official story in whatever way benefits people in power the most is not that far-fetched (in fact, it is practically human nature).
Comment by APJ — August 11, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
Re: #34
That falls more along my lines of belief. And the belief that the Government has never lied to the public is also incredibly naive.
Comment by Tim J. — August 11, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
BTW,
A recent poll showed that 1/3 of Americans also believe this way and there is PLENTY of evidence demonstrating the fact that the US had been duly warned.
Comment by Tim J. — August 11, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
a conspiracy to cover-up the truth and hide mistakes that were made while spinning the official story in whatever way benefits people in power the most is not that far-fetched
It’s also not what the Steve Jones’s of the world are claiming.
The claims are that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolitions.
The idea that things are messy and not the entire story is out falls withing in #! (the third positions listed above either fall under #1 or are refusels to take #2 to it’s logical conclusion.). Both my takes are not simplistic – they cover a wide range.
Of course the government lies to the people on certain occasions. The problem here is that there is way too much to be gained by a leaker. I don’t believe our government is, honestly, so efficient a conspiracy of this magnitude could be kept covered up.
Besides, there are plenty of sound scientific artilces that debunke the conspiracy theorists. At this point, most of those who claim to see validity in Steve Jones’ ideas are just putting their hands over their ears and singing “don’t trust the government” over and over again.
APJ’s claims ring false because Steve Jones has been proven wrong several times. But people will believe what they want to believe.
It’s the same reason some people listen to NPR or devoutley follow the DaVInci code – it lets them feel like they are in on some big secret the rest of us tools are blind to.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — August 11, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
And Steve Jones has countered those that deal directly with his hypothesese. Each one of them.
Comment by Tim J. — August 11, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
Re comment 36:
You’re right that my hypothetical in comment 33 still fits under your explanation of #1. However, there is a plausible 3rd explanation: people besides government officials (say, people with a financial motive, like Larry Silverstein) were involved with bringing the towers down (in addition to the terrorists slamming planes into the buildings). Then the government, instead of investigating thoroughly, simply blamed all damage on the terrorists. I’m not trying to assert this is true, just that there are other explanations. Really, my purpose in commenting isn’t to assert any claims other than that conspiracy theories (like any theories) should be dismissed (or accepted) on their merits, not on how patriotic they are. It seems like you are dismissing conspiracy theories just because they are conspiracy theories (that, and you don’t like the kind of people who buy into conspiracies).
Also, I should add that, at least from what I’ve seen of Dr. Jones’ presentations, he hasn’t directly implicated the government as having ORCHESTRATED the attacks. He presents scientific analysis and then his hypothesis, while saying that further investigation is necessary. He does spout his personal opinion occasionally, but at least in the presentation I saw, it is separate from the scientific part of his presentation. Perhaps he has become more anti-government since I saw him (I think it was back in January), but his presentation fell into neither of your explanations. SO, I would submit the ‘Steve Jones’ of the world’ to whom you allude are kind of a straw man, since Steve Jones himself isn’t really one, from what I’ve seen.
Comment by APJ — August 11, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
In response to Ivan’s assertion that if anyone who believes the government was involved and doesn’t leave the US, than they’re a hypocrite is a bit outrageous. In fact anyone who believes elements of the government were involved and doesn’t at least say so is a spineless twit, and why would you leave the country you love because it’s apparently under control of nefarious people as opposed to standing up and speaking out, and hopefully changing the situation. Ivan also goes on to claim that Jones has been proven false. I’ve read a lot of the articles that supposedly debunk Jones and they are week, like saying you can explain the molten steel as being aluminum from the aircraft. As Tim J pointed out the molten steel in those photos is clearly not molten aluminum. I wish people would just read Jones’ paper before they start dismissing it off hand and pegging Jones as an irresponsible, axe grinding scientist. Jones has quite honorably chosen to bare the cross of the truth in rigorously applying all observed data to the laws of physics and coming to the most scientifically logical conclusions. If nothing ells you have to admire the man’s backbone.
As a professional civil engineer I can attest that the collapse of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers is quite peculiar and contradicts the conservation of energy in a number of ways. I won’t bore you with the details just read Jones’ paper. Bottom line, it’s thermodynamically impossible for there to have been one drop of molten steel in those towers due to a hydrocarbon fire. Also, I just can’t get over why the NIST won’t release all of their work product.
BTW, I wasn’t a conspiracy freak until fairly recently after studying all of the evidence. STUDY ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, and then decide. If you read it and can’t conclude that it’s at least plausible (based on observed verifiable data) then you weren’t paying attention.
Comment by David H (PE) — August 11, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
Nor was I. Nor was Prof. Jones. He was actually a Bush supporter before he stumbled upon all of the evidence.
Comment by Tim J. — August 11, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
I’m going to stop this, because I think many of the commentators here, if they actually analyzed it, would find their arguments intellectually dishonest (saying Jones used to be a Bush supporter, or that you were never a conspiracy throry freak before are irrelevant to the argument at hand. They are red herrings and non sequiters).
One of the main traits of a conspiracy theory is that they are irrefutable – all evidence against is either evidence for it, or is always held to a (usally impossible to reach) higher standard that the evidence for it.
And I submit the comments above as proof of that. Steve Jones (and his ilk) has apparently irrefutable evidence for it. No matter how many times he is debunked, he will never be debunked in the eyes of the true believers.
I don’t even know why I even try.
As a scientist, I admit to being unable to argue along scientific lines. But as a rhetorician who studies argument – well, I see all the classic signs of to types of rhetoric surrounding this issue:
1. “Conspiracy theories” along the lines of the protocols of the Elders of Zion or the Illuminati or the Tri-lateral comission. The rhetorical patterns of argument are nearly identical.
2. Demgagory. Steve Jones and the 9/11 scholars for truth use rhetoric more aking to demagoges rather than scientists.
Because of that, there really is no fruitful arguments that can tale place.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — August 11, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
#2 should have been “demagoguery”. my bad.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — August 11, 2006 @ 7:01 pm
You study argument? Hmm. Good thing you pointed that out.
Comment by Tim J. — August 11, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
I study it – but that doesn’t mean I’m any good at it.
I recall a passage from “The Book of Knights” where the prospective knight is sent out to sally forth and all that. Proclaiming that he still hasn’t learned everything about knighthood, his trainer tells him soemthing like “if you study anymore you’ll be an expert on knights, but you won’t be a knight.”
Same here. I study argument, but I find my own ability to argue sorely lacking. Mainly because I fail to convince everyone just how right I am.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — August 11, 2006 @ 8:23 pm
Nice, Ivan. Thanks. I should have added the ol’
to my last comment. But it seems you took it the right way.
Comment by Tim J. — August 11, 2006 @ 8:26 pm
re 41: Ivan, it’s not over, till Steve Jones says it’s over (insert smiley face here). LOL
Comment by APJ — August 11, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
The arguments are these: America is a waning Empire looking to muscle the last bit of oil on the planet. We have a military to serve that very purpose. The world doesnt like it when we flex that muscle indiscriminately and without cause. 911 has been woven into these forgein policy realities and has been used to rationalize an any means necessary approach to abating high energy prices and disastrous energy shortages.
That Dr. Jones and others refuse to buy into the administrations jingoism and fabricated positions says much for the possiblity of rallying public opinion toward a reversal in our failed Iraq and Mid East policies.
The first salvo fired toward that end was seen in the defeat of Joseph Lieberman by his anti-war constituents. While a Democrat, he was hawkish on the war and toward Israel and his Jewish backers. The voters of Conn. sent a strong message to the Nation and the Admin.
Determining 911 realities wont save our oil, nor will it end the fighting in Iraq. Those are the bigger issues we need to address and the reallocation of our squandered billions toward meaningful change and reform.
Comment by David — August 12, 2006 @ 3:13 am
David wrote: “While a Democrat, [Lieberman] was hawkish on the war and toward Israel and his Jewish backers.”
Astroturf? You know who’s responsible for that, don’t you?! The Jews! Ah, the Jews hate grass. They always have, they always will.
Comment by George Costanza — August 12, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Thats not all I wrote, but thanks for retranslating that one sentence for all to read… I’m the sure the “group” appreciates your fine analysis of the origins of astro turf.
While Seinfeld has been off the air for some time now, its good to also know that it has helped serve to enlighten and shape your opinion on our forgein policy.
I guess even in times of war and bloodshed laughter is the best medicine…
Comment by David — August 12, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
Anyone want to tell me why in the world the government would want to do such a thing? sorry, I don’t get it. sounds like a bunch of bush hating to me.
Comment by B — August 13, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
If it’s true that 9/11 was a conspiracy involving cabal like forces in the US government, then the most likely motive would be that it was done to create a mechanism to generating trillions of dollars worth of defense dollars. Plus the oil thing.
Comment by Starting to Wonder — August 13, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
Re: 41
Ivan, are you a scientist or rhetorician first? If a scientist you might reconsider you overall position. Concerning your last comments that equate the 9/11 Truth Movement to conspiracy theories like the Elders of Zion or the Illuminati. There is little verifiable evidence to substantiate those conspiracy theories (one way or another). There is however a ton of inconsistencies with the official 9/11 story that creates a preponderance of evidence that indicates that 9/11 should be investigated further. In fact, what’s so remarkable about the 9/11 truth theories is that they may be tested using the scientific method, using observable and verifiable data. We’re talking about the fundamental principle of science here. Namely, how do you account for the full conservation of energy in the collapse of WTC building #1, 2 and 7? The fact is that it rather looks like the principles of the conservation of energy are violated.
Bare with me for a minute…
All of the initial energy in the WTC “failure system†is the potential energy of the building (due to it’s elevation) the kinetic energy from the aircraft (which was spent in causing structural damage in WTC building #1 and 2 and the thermal energy (generated from the jet fuel and the burning office material). This energy has to balance out with the amount of energy that was clearly manifested in the extremely rapid, symmetrical and complete collapse of those three building. It takes a lot of energy to sever steel and concrete. You simple can not convert potential energy to kinetic energy that FAST while accounting for the energy that it would take to shear the steel when the NIST admits that the steel was no hotter than 300 deg C. Steel is still rather strong at those temperatures, and that maximum temperature was isolated and not over a wide area. And where did all the energy come from to pulverize all of the concrete that covered much of Manhattan? This is basic physics, so why is it so hard to account for all of the energy? Because you can’t, unless you use explosive to sever the structural steel (thus all of the molten steel that was encountered in the cleanup and the reports of secondary explosions.)
Now I know that most people who just read the above are rolling their eyes trusting in their gut that in reality I don’t have a clue of what I’m talking. But these same people won’t take so much as a few hours out of their lives to truly try and understand why WTC #7 completely collapsed symmetrically at a rate nearly equal to free fall, when it wasn’t hit by an airplane and it did not have extraordinarily intense fires. And why for the love of God does Larry Silverstein clearly indicated in a PBS documentary that WTC 7 was “pulled�
This topic has nothing to do with Bush Hating. It’s about the facts and how to objectively account for everything that we know happened on 9/11.
Comment by David H (PE) — August 14, 2006 @ 9:06 am
This has to be one nut (perhaps Jones?) posting under different names. There just can’t be that many out there. These alleged conspiracies would have involved hundreds, if not thousands of people. How could so many remain silent for so long? Go with Ockham on this one and put it to bed.
Comment by Steve EM — August 14, 2006 @ 10:07 am
There aren’t that many out there because of the preponderance of naïve closed minded citizens who would just assume rest on Occam’s razor then studying the evidence and use logic. And that’s why the 9/11 truth movement will never go anywhere. I have a license to practice professional civil engineering in Texas, I took the time to read the NIST reports. I happened upon this blog site after a google search for FR Greening. I’ve never met Jones but I have read his paper. If the NIST would have just given more detailed information of their quantitative analysis and released all of their work product from their computer modeling so that it could be checked and reviewed then I wouldn’t have to go around blogging about something that sounds so ridiculous to people who really don’t have a clue about how incredibly compelling the controlled demolition theory really is (in light of all of the observed evidence.) But don’t let the fact get in your way.
Comment by David H (PE) — August 14, 2006 @ 11:09 am
david -
I’m not a scientist at all, which is why I said I am not really qualified to judge the scientific merits. I have taken science classes, and the debunkings done by places like Popular Science and the like all seem more convincing to me than the works by Jones and his ilk. I am, however, writing my dissertation in Rhetoric. And when the rhetoric of Conspiracy theories starts getting used, I get very antsy.
As for your responses/claims:
You’ve pretty much proven my point. The disdain for the “close minded citizens” who fail to have the superior insight you have. The constant harping on the messiness of the official story (real life is messy – the attraction of conspiracy theories is that they replace all the chaos with order) and the claims that this conspiracy theory is different than all the others – it has irrefutable evidence on its side! (never mind that every conspiracy theory always claims it’s different than all the other ones because it has real evidence while the others don’t).
I could go on and on. The rhetoric is eerily close(actually it’s spot on). It would take at least a 30 page essay to do it justice and I don’t have time to do it. But just know that you and the other defenders of Jones fall under the pattern very neatly.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — August 14, 2006 @ 11:44 am
OK, I could go on and on too. But my on and on is at least grounded in observable data. Like I said before I can only dismiss so much evidence, whereas you’re willing to dismiss all of it based on Occam’s Razor. As for popular mechanics debunking we can get into that if you want.
I don’t disdain the closed minded citizens it’s just the way it is. And there’s nothing rhetorical about wanting to have a better more quantitative explanation from the NIST with full disclosure of their work product. It is what it is. I’m trying defend the science the rhetoric just creeps in every now and again.
And if you want to talk about rhetoric how about calling me a nut because I demand that basic scientific principle be adhered to. Again don’t let the fact’s get in your way (OK I admit that’s rhetoric, but rhetoric with a point).
Comment by David H (PE) — August 14, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
I challenge the people who are discrediting Steve to read his paper and then, instead of bashing him as the person, disprove his science. I would like to see a scientific and non-emotionally motivated response to the claims he has made. As a mechanical engineer you can add me to that apparently small group of people who believes further investigation is necessary.
Comment by Brady — August 14, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
1. I never invoked Occam’s razor. Don’t confuse me with Steve EM. (another feature of conspiracy theories – everyone else becomes fungible).
2. I have read Steve Jones paper. More importantly for me, I’ve read all his other public statements on this issue. I’ve also read several of the debunkers. Popular Science’s article seemed to me the clearest and most well reasoned.
3. All argument is rhetoric. To say “there is nothing rhetorical about this” is to be blind to what you are really doing. Any attempt to get someone or something else to do, believe or acknoweldge something is done through rhetoric.
4. I would like to see non-emotional defenses of Steve Jones. All his defenders seem unaware of the mounds of emotion (contempt and anger being the biggest two) spilling out of there posts. This is an emotional issue, however, and there’s plenty to go around on all sides.
’nuff said.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — August 14, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Ivan,
You have invoked Occam’s razor, though not by name, by implying that a government conspiracy is too complicated to be feasible and other assertions. In fact, your whole position seems to rely on Occam’s razor.
You have not responded to my assertion that a third explanation is possible (that others with a financial interest, with knowledge of the attack, took advantage of that knowledge by making sure the Towers would fall). But hey, why would you, when it’s so much easier to simply call conspiracy theorists paranoid, elitist, or both, and sweepingly assert that anyone not in line with the official explanation is blaming the ‘government’ (whoever they are)?
You have also ignored my non-emotional defense (even though you plea for such defenses of Jones in your last comment) of Steve Jones, when I say that Jones has not DIRECTLY accused any government official of being DIRECTLY involved in the 9/11 attacks. Jones has demonstrated (scientifically) problems with the offiicial story and asserted that more objective investigation is necessary. To the extent that government officials impede that investigation, they are wrong. As I mentioned above, placing such impediments to objective investigation is human nature. Yes, Jones is upset about the government’s handling of the whole episode, but that doesn’t mean he is accusing Bush, or any government official of active participation in the attacks.
I might add that some of the members of the 9/11 commission recently have stated that they had the impression that some government officials were not being completely honest in the hearings, but that for whatever reasons they were unable to fully get to the bottom of things.
And speaking of non-emotional assertions, how do you classify your statement (comment 32) that anyone who doesn’t agree with you (or at least your explanation 1 in that comment) is a hypocrite who should leave the country immediately?
Comment by APJ — August 14, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
I would have to argue that those arguing AGAINST a conspiracy are have been far more emotional than those arguing for one. Most of the name-calling, insulting has been fairly one-sided.
Comment by Tim J. — August 14, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
1. At the end of post #58, I admitted I was being emotional. It’s an emotional topic.
2. One feature of in-group/out-group thinking (prominent in conspiracy theories but also in politics in general) is that the other side always does it worse. When WE get emotional, it isn’t all that bad – but the other side is always out of bounds.
3. Yes – because phrases such as “preponderance of naïve closed minded citizens ” are not name calling.
4. There are a lot of double standards going on here (on all sides). But then again, the thread seems to have been taken over by pro-Jones people with axes to grind. Fruitful debate will not occur.
5. Steve EM is not helping with his vitriolic anti-Jones and anti-BYU statements. He’s (sort of) on my side and even I think he’s waaaaaaaay out of bounds.
Why do I even bother?
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — August 14, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
And why do I keep saying Popular Science when I mean Popular Mechanics?
Anyway:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/911mythsblog
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — August 14, 2006 @ 9:21 pm
Ivan, re comment 61,
Okay, so we all agree it’s an emotional topic. That doesn’t keep you from addressing the substance of people’s comments does it?
For example, back at comment 38, I offer a 3rd explanation to the events, whereas you only offered 2 in comment 32 and said there could be no others. Instead of addressing that, you keep focusing the ‘name-calling’ aspect of this thread, which, unsurprisingly, inspires more name-calling.
For the record, I am not a Jones ‘supporter’. I watched his presentation at UVSC and found it interesting, the same way I find lots of things interesting. To the extent that he is politically motivated, that’s too bad. To the extent he has been discredited, fine. To the extent he hasn’t, well, good for him. But I do think it’s inaccurate to say that him and people like him are accusing the government of directly orchestrating the attacks. And for those who are saying that (and if Jones is now doing that, I don’t know), okay, well, I don’t agree with that. My point is that there are other people who we could call ‘conspiracy theorists’ who espouse a ‘kinder, gentler’-type of conspiracy theory, and I don’t think it’s fair to lump them in with the extreme conspiracy-theorists. You seem incapable of grasping this concept, or even admitting it could possibly exist.
“Why do I even bother?” Bother doing what?, I would ask. All you’ve done is state your position, say that anyone who doesn’t agree is a hypocrite not entitled to live in America and then make various ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees. You complain about the ‘emotional’ nature of people’s comments, and then ‘prove’ this by ignoring the substance of people like David’s comment (#52) and focusing only on emotional phrases of his comment. This, you claim, is ‘proof’ of the lack of merit of the opposing side. But then, you admit that this is an emotionally charged subject, and that such should be expected; however, you still focus only on those aspects of people’s comments, ignoring any substance in them. David clearly said that, at least for him, this is not about Bush-hating; it is about discovering what truly happened. And that is true for me as well.
Comment by APJ — August 14, 2006 @ 9:41 pm
Ivan,
Now that everyone has agreed that they are emotional about this issue, would you care to address the fact that I have pointed out a third explanation (going back to your ‘either/or’ explanations in comment 32)? My alternative is that, while terrorists did fly planes into buildings, other people (ones with an interest in taking down the tower) OTHER THAN GOV’T OFFICIALS, may have played some part in bringing down the towers. I’m not saying I agree with it, but it presents an alternative to your either/or scenario, which you have not addressed.
Also, what do you think of my assertion that Steve Jones has not blamed the government specifically for carrying out the attacks? You have not addressed that. It seems like you are painting him as more of a radical than I had believed. If he is so radical as to blame ‘the government’ for orchestrating the attacks, then I would like to know, because the presentation that he gave at UVSC, while controversial, didn’t seem to go that far. If I misread him or if he has hardened his position, I would like to know.
BTW, if debate is actually what you are interested in, comments like ‘why do I even bother’ and ’nuff said’ are probably not going to stimulate such.
Comment by APJ — August 14, 2006 @ 11:51 pm
Woops, for some reason my comment 63 just posted when I put comment 64. I thought comment 63 had been lost, because it had been over an 2 hours since I had tried to post it, so comment 64 is somewhat duplicative and seems redundant.
Comment by APJ — August 14, 2006 @ 11:55 pm
For what it’s worth, I think Steven Jones should continue his research, however I think he should stay far afield from conspiracy theories until and unless he comes up with clear and convincing evidence that some particular party engineered what he suspects. Innocent until proven guilty, I say.
Comment by Mark Butler — August 15, 2006 @ 1:40 am
APJ wrote: “what do you think of my assertion that Steve Jones has not blamed the government specifically for carrying out the attacks?”
I think it’s hogwash. Jones is the co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and the creator of its webpage. The “who we are” page says that Scholars for 9/11 Truth “believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.” His PDF slides at
http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf
(which look like they were typeset by the Tanners) go to great lengths to implicate the government.
Comment by Chris Grant — August 15, 2006 @ 9:01 am
What’s wrong with going with Occam? The principle has served me well my entire life.
Ivan,
You’re a BYU apologist, I’m not. Let’s just agree to disagree. BYU admin makes a mockery of academic freedom and thier own “policies”, and tarnishes all thier alums in the process. Then in the Jones case, they reverse course and give this guy all the rope he wants. Jones is somewhat effeminate. I think it’s reasonable to speculate that he has dirt on some high BYU admin guy, as most BYU profs into deep doo-doo like this wouldn’t have hung on nearly this long. But, who knows? The guy’s science career is over anyway. Science costs money, and I can’t imagine any of this guy’s research proposals getting funding in the future.
Comment by Steve EM — August 15, 2006 @ 9:19 am
This blog topic is about whether or not Dr. Jones is grinding a political axe or practicing good science. So we should be able to make points within the framework of the scientific method by and large.
Anyhow, sense Ivan linked Popular Mechanics article I have to comment on that. There’s a book and an article. I haven’t read the book yet. But I have read the article, and I think it’s fair to say that PM expects the reader to take a lot for granted, and it’s misleading in numerous ways. The article is factually correct in its content but it is misleading and a complete over simplification.
For example…
Consider PM’s “debunking†of the notion that the existence of “melted†steel is really not an issue by directly debunking AttackOnAmerica.net assertion that “the existence of melted steel is an impossibility sense “no kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steelâ€
First off notice that they don’t deny the existence of molten (“melted†is a bad term) steel. Secondly, anyone who thinks that the existence of molten steel is not an issues is quite wrong based on the fact that the NIST report indicates that the hottest any of that structural steel got was 300 deg C. That’s not molten and the steel is still quite strong at those temperatures. So where did the molten steel come from (where did the energy to create it come from)? Were all of the reports and pictures of molten steel erroneous? They would have to be for the NIST report to hold up. PM does not address this issue fairly (among other issues). They’d be better off asking you to believe that there was is no proof that molten steel was really encountered. But there is proof that molten steel was encountered and I haven’t ever heard anyone deny it. FR Greening is a much more skilled debunker than PM.
Comment by David H (PE) — August 15, 2006 @ 9:33 am
David, what’s more, this blog post was actually about whether science is not good science even if it has a political axe to grind.
Comment by john f. — August 15, 2006 @ 9:56 am
The Popular Mechanics article was also written by Michael Chertoff’s (the head of Homeland Security) cousin, Benjamin. I’m not really asserting that that means anything, other than the fact he might also be grinding his political axe.
Comment by Tim J. — August 15, 2006 @ 10:33 am
Re: 68
Steve EM, I think you’re a conspiracy nut with your baseless speculation that BYU hasn’t fired Jones because he has dirt on someone high up. BYU hasn’t fired him because he has tenure and good universities don’t fire tenured professors who are making valid scientific observations just because the implication makes people uncomfortable.
What in the hell does Jones being “effeminate†have to do with anything? How about you try and make an intelligent statement based on something factual instead of simply relying on Occam without qualification. It’s nonsense.
Comment by David H (PE) — August 15, 2006 @ 10:35 am
David, Steve has been making these arguments for a long time, on numerous other threads besides this one. I don’t think it’s worth your time to engage him on them. Your discussion with Ivan and others seems more productive.
Comment by john f. — August 15, 2006 @ 11:11 am
David,
Tenure doesn’t protect someone from spouting nonsense. For example, if a tenured science prof was spouting off against evolution citing the second law of thermodynamics, they should face a revocation of tenure hearing. I think conspiracy theories that involve at least hundreds, if not thousands of participants, fall into that catagory. Moreover, this is BYU which doesn’t have academic freedom protections like most schools. If BYU wasn’t fast fast to terminate poeple for far less, I’d be cutting Jones a lot more slack than I am.
Regarding Jones being effeminate, I was hinting effeminate might mean gay, might mean having a gay affair with some BYU higher up, might mean protection for Jones. Knowing BYU, if it’s not that, Jones has pictures of someone with animals or a boy. No way he could survive this long otherwise. But again, who knows? The whole thing is bizarre.
Comment by Steve EM — August 15, 2006 @ 11:13 am
john f,
Thanks for the equal time endorsement for the common sense explanation of 9/11.
Comment by Steve EM — August 15, 2006 @ 11:21 am
Steve, I was referring to your baseless accusations of Jones having “dirt” on BYU higher ups, on BYU not espousing academic freedom, on Jones not deserving tenure, etc., not your explanation for 9/11.
Comment by john f. — August 15, 2006 @ 11:28 am
Academics owe society a duty to dispense truth and intellectual honesty. When they don’t they get castrated and vilified by their peeers and the community in which they serve.
It appears Jones has utilized his “safe harbor” as a tenured BYU professor to vocalize and publish a more sound and realistic explanation for why 3 rather large, sophisticatedly built structures came down like the game Jenga. Somehow someway the piping hot jet fuel escaped the Twin Towers and found its way into building 7 unbeknownst to the fire fighting establishment and then 9 hours later reduced the steel and cement tonnage to rubble.
What a miraculous and efficient use of the the terrorists resources and lives that they could essentially kill 3 birds with two stones. Dr. Jones would need some massive dirt to protect his professional existence from refuting the above mentioned outcome. Thats how full proof and iron clad the “official” explanation has been.
People we can do better. Our Gov’t is us, and is not beyond reproach by the very citizens who make the machine fly. Without us there is no them. We are them.
Lets all come on board for the “Big Win.”
Comment by David — August 15, 2006 @ 11:39 am
Chris,
I took a look at the PDF slides you link to, and still think the group leans more towards the ‘government had advance warning and did nothing so as to use the attacks as political currency later’ than the ‘government actually did it’ mindset. The quote you use practically says what I’ve been claiming, that they “believe that the government not only PERMITTED 9/11 to occur but MAY even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.”
Yes, Jones is very critical of the government; in that sense he is grinding an axe, politically. But that doesn’t discredit his science. If he were claiming that aliens planted explosives in the towers, it wouldn’t disprove the scientific claims he makes.
Most importantly for me, Jones isn’t calling for immediate revolution and the execution of Bush and others; he is calling for MORE RESEARCH to get to the bottom of all of this. He responds to critics, instead of pretending they don’t exist.
I don’t agree with everything Jones says (if he’s totally off-base, fine, somebody prove it and let’s move on), but I do think he provides an important purpose. It’s never a bad thing to consider an alternate explanation, especially when the official explanation has so many gaping holes! For example, even official reports admit that WTC 7 collapsing from random debris from the other towers has a ‘low probability’ of occuring. So what’s wrong with Jones trying to figure out an explanation with a ‘higher probability’ of occurence.
Again, if Jones is wrong, fine. But why write him off just because of what the implications are if he is right (sounds like putting one’s head in the sand)?
Comment by APJ — August 15, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
APJ:
Saying that Jones and his website don’t accuse the Bush administration of involvement in the attack is like saying that Steve EM’s scurrilous and shameful rumor-mongering about Jones doesn’t accuse Jones of immorality. Absurd.
APJ goes on to say: “Most importantly for me, Jones isn’t calling for immediate revolution and the execution of Bush and others.”
Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Comment by Chris Grant — August 15, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
Chris,
Call me a soft bigot if you really think it applies. Perhaps I am crazy, but I just think there’s a big difference between saying “X happened” and “maybe X happened” or, most importantly, “from what I’ve seen X isn’t likely, maybe Y happened, but let’s keep investigating it.”
BTW, obviously, my comment about revolution and executing leaders based on speculation was hyperbole; it was meant to show that Jones is calling for more investigation and that he is not pretending to have all the answers. But thanks for pointing out that, if I had been serious, then I would have low expectations. That was an important point to make.
Comment by APJ — August 15, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
All,
Since a few of you figured it out, I confess to playing on the irony of getting many of you bent out of shape because of speculation about immorality and extortion, while Jones et al. get a free ride in this forum regarding baseless speculation about far worse things, such as mass murder, war mongering, massive property destruction, etc.
Bare in mind, not having been born LDS and being an RM who fell away from the church at BYU (came back when I got married a few years later) means I know exactly where to fire the torpedoes.
That said, the point is valid. Jones et al. are the ones utterly out of control.
Comment by Steve EM — August 15, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
Re: 81
Sure, but don’t bother trying to substantiate that claim that Jones is engaging in baseless speculation. I mean don’t bother reading his paper, or specifically pointing out an example of Dr. Jones baseless speculation. Clearly Occam couldn’t be wrong.
Comment by David H (PE) — August 15, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
Steve EM,
I think there are differences between Steve Jones’ baseless speculation (mainly, that it is not baseless), and yours. As far as your motivation in bending people out of shape to demonstrate that it’s somehow hypocritical to give Jones a ‘free ride,’ well not just Jones supporters have responded negatively to your comments. Your point just doesn’t make sense: of course people are going to disagree with you asserting that certain people are sexual deviants with absolutely no evidence. This doesn’t illustrate anything related to Jones or the discussion at hand.
Comment by APJ — August 15, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
APJ,
Love ya man. You’re making my point. Lighten up. It was a joke reflecting the theater of the absurb aspect of LDS culture. Jones makes “accusations” of cold blooded mass murder by USA Gov’t and business leaders, and some LDS want to discuss that in an unemotional setting. But joke about homosexuality, beastiality, pedophilia and extortion and the merde hits the fan?
You’ve never worked with an organization with a gross incompetent or person harming the organization when someone cracks something a kin to “The guy must have pictures of (typically the General Manager) with animals!”? Given that many others have been canned from BYU for far less, it’s an appropriate quip for this Jones business.
Comment by Steve EM — August 15, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
Steve EM,
For what it is worth, I think your comments are funny in a bizzaro/absurd kind of way. I frequently laugh when I read them. I just don’t think that peoples’ reactions to your comments prove any point or hypocrisy on their part.
To answer your question, yes, I’ve heard those kind of jokes. I just haven’t seen the joke teller later try to use people’s reaction to those jokes to prove that his audience are hypocrites. Your comments are amusing sometimes; I just think you’re comparing apples to oranges.
I love you too,
Comment by APJ — August 15, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
Interesting reading. (My second visit to Bloggernacle, I think…)
I would call your attention to the fact that as our research here proceeds, others are doing research and publishing as well.
Note especially papers in http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Gordon Ross and (yes) Frank Greening tackle the question of what happens after the N. Tower collapse is initiated? Ross concludes that the collapse will be ARRESTED, due to 287 intact steel columns (47 core, 240 perimeter) below the strike. Hmmm… based on conservation of energy and momentum and other basic laws.
Kevin Ryan critiques the NIST report in some detail.
History-buffs will (or may) enjoy Joseph Firmage’s paper…
Frank Legge provides valuable summaries. ETC.
Oops, gotta get back to research…
Prof. Steven Jones
Comment by Steven E. Jones — August 15, 2006 @ 6:51 pm
Thanks for your input Professor Jones.
Comment by john f. — August 15, 2006 @ 7:01 pm
Sure thing, John.. Not much time for such, but it is fun to see how the tide SEEMS to be turning among the LDS. Do you folks ever talk about Helamen 6-7, where the Gadiantons gain ‘management of the government’ — or is that off limits as conspiracy theory?
“My guess is that Jones hasn’t been reading the Bloggernacle Times, which has featured several discussions about his theories,”
gave me a nice laugh today…
Oh– and in the same Journal, note the fine (and short) paper analyzing the collapse of WTC 7 — by Kenneth Kuttler — a Professor of Mathematics at …
Comment by Steven E. Jones — August 15, 2006 @ 7:09 pm
Dr. Jones,
Are you utterly clueless to the harm you’re causing? Have you been pressured to leave BYU? Is it hard for you to stay? Is someone high up protecting you?
Unbelievable that someout can get kicked out of BYU for something as benign as sleeping with his gf, and you remain there doing actual harm.
Comment by Steve EM — August 15, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
Classy, Steve EM. Professor Jones shows up and instead of asking him a direct question (and aren’t you “qualified” to do so?), you insult him instead. I’m beginning to think that you’re actually 12, because no mature individual acts this way.
Comment by Tim J. — August 15, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
I think deep down the Church is resentful that this War on Terror and Iraqi debacle have made for a very hostile climate for the Church’s missionaries worldwide. Not to mention unsafe.
My little brother just got back from N. Spain where he was pulverized daily with insulting comments and remarks, particular about the US, George Bush and the killing that has been caused. They even attacked Utah for being Republican conservative and for supporting our war mongering President.
Deep down Steven EM, the Church leadership may be secretly applauding the work Dr. Jones is performing and for calling out the evil agenda being performed by our elected evil doers.
While Bush is the “decider” the rest of the world decides how to treat us, the citizens of our bullying Empire. I dont see how the Church can harmonize its message around the world with the blatant actions of war and bloodletting by our governement.
I think the Church needs to call and audible and do what many multi-national corporations have done and that is relocate somewhere else that better suits their long range mission and goals. Easier said then done but we all get the point.
In the meantime until some men in dark suits with ear pieces find their way into the halls of Church power and force some decisions regarding Jones he may not be going anywhere for awhile.
Comment by David — August 15, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
David,
W is a dolt asleep at the switch (like some of our GAs), or Rumsfeld would have been fired in term 1 and the Iraq business would have settled down years ago. All these years later, the Iraqi borders have never been sealed nor has the option of division into three natural counties or a confederacy been seriously considered. Moreover, Iran has a free ride in destabilizing their Iraqi Shia cousins, because the Bushies squandered everything in Iraq rather than looking at the big picture. How could a dolt like W, who doesn’t even have the wherewithal to get competent hired help, be the mastermind of a huge conspiracy?
You’re correct that many Europeans have morphed into the ugly American of a generation ago. But having lived in France, the UK and the Netherlands, if it wasn’t this it would be blaming America for some other global issue. When I served in the South of France, our efforts were shut down for months by the irrelevant Jim Jones cult suicide. Those are things beyond our control. But ditching the dorky unfriendly 1920s period clothing would do much for our missionary efforts, and until such easy things are addressed, it’s hard for me to believe the GAs are serious about missionary work anyway. Like I said, asleep at the switch.
Comment by Steve EM — August 16, 2006 @ 8:44 am
Steven E. Jones wrote: “note the fine (and short) paper analyzing the collapse of WTC 7 — by Kenneth Kuttler — a Professor of Mathematics at …”
Kuttler’s paper applies high school physics to estimate the time it would take for a 47-story, 576-foot tall building with 33-inch thick uniformly-spaced floors to collapse through top-down pancaking from floor 47 down to floor 1. The floors of WTC 7 were not 33-inches thick. WTC 7 did not collapse through top-down pancaking.
“Consider a spherical cow, filled uniformly with milk . . .”
Comment by Chris Grant — August 16, 2006 @ 9:31 am
Professor Jones, I’m glad you caught the humor in my post. The comment about BYU not having received the Bloggernacle and DAMU (disaffected mormon underground, or something like that) memos that BYU is supposed to be unaware of the concept of academic freedom was supposed to be funny as well. Obviously, I believe that BYU is committed to academic freedom and that discussions in the Bloggernacle are, perhaps, not exactly earth-shatteringly important. Still, I must confess to you that I am not a fan of conspiracy theories and am not on board with you for this one at the moment. But nothing is set in stone, I suppose.
Comment by john f. — August 16, 2006 @ 11:50 am
RE: 93
Chris, Thank you for the intelligent, factually based comment (seriously). I think it’s the first objective comment offered in opposition to the scientific merit of the controlled demolition theory. Steve EM please take note.
I haven’t read Kuttler’s paper (maybe I’ll get to it this weekend), but I have read Ross’ paper and Greening’s rebuttal and Ross’ subsequent reply. I found Ross’ paper worth reading in that it’s the first time I’ve actually seen anyone try and quantify the energy balance. Ross showed that after incorporating all of Greening criticisms that the collapse of WTC 1 still should have been arrested, and not continued all the way to the ground (in fact no where close to the ground).
As for WTC 7, does it not at least peak your interest that a modern steel framed building could collapse at a rate equal to free fall (accounting for air resistance.) I mean surely the resistive strain energy offered by the steel and concrete would have slowed the collapse more than what was observed. As for Kuttler using high school physics, well in light of Occam’s razor the simplicity of Kuttler’s analysis only goes to substantiate it. High school physics teaches us on the first day that the conservation of energy is absolute. If you violate it than you better be prepared to come up with an alternative theory.
There’s also the serious question of whether it’s even reasonable that WTC should have collapsed at all.
Comment by David H (PE) — August 16, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
David H (PE):
(1) You don’t need a weekend to read Kuttler’s paper; you need maybe 15 minutes.
(2) The point in mentioning “high school physics” is that it makes Kuttler’s credentials as an expert in thermoviscoelasticity a moot point. It is no exaggeration to say that a smart high school physics student could have done the same analysis in an hour or two.
(3) The point in mentioning that Kuttler has the thickness of the floors wrong is not that getting them right would shorten the estimated collapse time–it would not–but that it suggests unfamiliarity with the NIST reports, which clearly state the thickness of the floors.
(4) Simple models are bad when they are fundamentally wrong-headed. The videos don’t show WTC 7 undergoing top-down pancaking from floor 47 to floor 1, NIST scientists haven’t claimed that’s what happened, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists haven’t claimed that’s what happened either. So what’s the point of this analysis?
Comment by Chris Grant — August 16, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
All good points, but again intuitively does it not at least peak your interest that those towers and in particularly WTC 7 collapsed as rapidly as what they did? Are you satisfied that you can convert potential to kinetic energy as fast as what was observed and still conserve enough energy to sheer through massive steel columns and bust up concrete?
Would you not admit that the fact that WTC 7 collapse at all and then collapsed so rapidly at least appears to be an anomaly?
Comment by David H (PE) — August 16, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
APJ wrote: “Most importantly for me, Jones isn’t calling for immediate revolution and the execution of Bush and others.â€
I already commented on this, but as a follow-up comment let me note Chronicle of Higher Education‘s account of a speech given by Jones’ Scholars for 9/11 Truth co-chair:
Comment by Chris Grant — August 16, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
Wow. I didn’t expect that. Thanks for the note, Chris.
Comment by john f. — August 16, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
So I understand that the blog post is about whether science is not good science even if it has a political axe to grind to grind.
I say the only thing that needs to define good science is that it is practiced within the boundaries of the scientific method. I think the real question is whether or not Jones is practicing irresponsible science in his assertions and using that to grind a political axe. That of course would be wrong. Jones however has asserted his theories regarding controlled demolition within the bounds of the scientific method. The implications are more than people are willing to accept, and as a result most people as you can see from this blog are totally incapable of confronting the hard evidence and simply dismiss it based on intuition as opposed to scientific logic.
I was getting excited there for a second as I thought Chris might be willing to engage the purely scientific aspects of Jones’ theory. Oh well. I know I’m sounding like a broken record but just read the man’s paper and try and imagine how one might fit together the theory with the observations.
If Jones is right about controlled demolition than I don’t think the comments mentioned above by Chris are really all that far out of line.
Comment by David H (PE) — August 16, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
I would formulate it more as asking whether science can be good science even if it is motivated by a political axe to grind.
Comment by john f. — August 16, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
And I would say yes, again good science is good strictly based on it’s fair unbiased application of the scientific method. I don’t believe that Dr. Jones is primarily motivation by politics. I think he’s primarily motivated by his sense of honor and respect for our Constitutional Republic. Otherwise why would he stick his neck so far out just to throuw stones at the current administration’s policies?
Comment by David H (PE) — August 16, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
I don’t know the answer to your question but I think my main point was science is or can still be good science even if a motivation is primarily political. At least I don’t see why not. The bias will not prevent good science from standing on its own, regardless of why it was performed.
Comment by john f. — August 17, 2006 @ 11:20 am
It takes approx. 2 weeks to fully wire a bldg. for demolition. Not to mention taking out the appropriate permits and whatnot. Silverstein who owned the Bldgs. is on record as saying they decided to “pull it” (Bldg 7) 9 hrs. after the fires burned. You cant effectuate a demolition that quick so it stands to reason he had that bldg. wired before hand and had prior knowledge or privileged, ” heads up.” Look at the agencies that leased from him (.i.e. IRS, CIA, City of NY and Giulanis command bunker) and how powerfully built the building was.
Factore these realities with Jones’s career altering, patriotic questioning actions, and the math begins to add up, backed by irrefutable science. Science trumps politics and emotion (at least is should) and thats the card Jones can play without having the Feds wired his office and BYU in general. This is different from trying to form a militia in backwater Idaho.
This is a challenge backed by intellect and scientific authorities. Its the worst form of challenge a Govt can have. When the intelligentsia marshalls their positions and forces the Govt has to take notice.
Comment by David — August 18, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
David, the “pull it” comment has already been fully explained as pulling people out of the area.
Comment by Clark Goble — August 18, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
They had 9 hours to contain the fires…. Why werent other bldgs. much closer to the towers unaffected or unscathed by fires? It doesnt hold. The bldg wasnt even engulfed by flames? How does jet fuel make its way over to bldg. 7? How do a few fires on a few floors orchestrate the way bldg 7 collapsed to fully mirror a demolition?
I know we all want to believe, but lets set aside emotion in lieu of the obvious. People got paid. People have been muted and gagged. The official story now sacrosanct and the masses ready to charge that hil… Its classic statecraft of the highest magnitude.
This is nothing more that another “Magic Bullet Theory” and the sanctioning by a 21st century Warren Commission.
Comment by David — August 18, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
In my opionion Silverstein worked out a deal before hand and said lets do this but I want Bldg. 7 encumbered by the events, followed up with an iron clad insurance policy. Based upon investigations he was over enriched by the tragedy. How does that happen? Most insurance companies do not indemnify against acts of terror.
Eliminate bldg 7′s involvement and Im drinking the kool Aid, even though I like Jones position and evidence combined with common sense analysis.
Something just smells.
Comment by David — August 18, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
David is having fun with us.
Comment by Steve EM — August 18, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
I actually think that David is saying that he would believe the official story if WTC 7 hadn’t collapsed too. But he feels that the circumstances surrounding the collapse of WTC 7 don’t add up, to his reasoning, and so he has become skeptical about the whole story. I think he means it sincerely.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 5:16 pm
Its not a matter of having fun and enjoying the bursting of bubbles… Its a matter of conscience and holding those accountable for egregious actions that have maimed many.
Other points brought to light are that the WTC towers were dilapidated and chocked full of asbestos with over 200 million needed in improvements and abatement costs. Not a pretty picture. Who was going to pay to put the lip stick on the pigs as we like to say in real estate? Vacancies were also high with no sign in sight of making the buildings more profitable. Guaranteeing their implosion was amongst the highest order in conjunction with the airplane attacks. If the attacks happen and the buildings dont fall per skyscraper histories with massive fires, then Houston we have another problem.
Anyway, I enjoy the scholar exchange and look forward to others coming forward with good insights and analysis…
Comment by David — August 18, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
“They had 9 hours to contain the fires.”
Not only did they not contain the fires, but apparently the sprinkler system wasn’t working well that day.
“It takes approx. 2 weeks to fully wire a bldg. for demolition.”
I think Prof. Jones makes the assertion, though I believe he may have been talking about WTC 1&2, that the charges could’ve been placed by as few as ten men.
Comment by Tim J. — August 18, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
How come these massive high rises never collapsed??? For photos see the following site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. 1 Â 2 Â 3 Â It was later described by Philadelphia officials as “the most significant fire in this century”.
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. 4 Â Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.
The First Insterstate Bank fire
The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city’s history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss. 5 Â
Comment by David — August 18, 2006 @ 10:55 pm
In all fairness if you watch the entire context of Silverstein’s comment, and its location in the PBS documentary, it does appear as though he is talking about “pull it†as in controlled demolition. It’s just another point within the plethora of evidence that is being so off handedly dismissed, like molten metal, reports of secondary explosions, reports of explosions in the basement, the marble in the lobby of the trade center was smashed to pieces, (apparently the fire ball traveling down the elevator shaft retained enough energy to do this!) there are “squibs†being rapidly ejecting from the towers below the collapse zone, and most of all there is no way to derive an energy balance that would show a surplus of available energy to sustain the complete global failure of WTC 1 or 2 . In the case of the North Tower, the plane struck around the 90th floor. It just fascinates me that you could smash through 90 stories of structural steel all the way to the ground with out the structural steel dampening the conversion of potential to kinetic energy to an arrested state.
The NIST should at the very least propose a quantitative expression showing that the total available collapse energy was in fact greater that the available resistive strain energy. See Ross and Greenings Papers.
To understand the improbability of complete collapse consider a paper presented by LU Xinzheng & JIANG Jianjing (Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing), presented Nov. 2002. These engineers did in fact show that they could create a dynamic finite element model that showed that the Towers would have sustained total global collapse. BUT, they had to heat the steal to 700 deg C to do it. The NIST indicates that the steel was 300 deg C max and only in one isolated area of the South Tower, the North tower was more like 200 deg C max. The NIST could not justify these high temperatures (used by LU and JIANG) based on their thermodynamic modeling so they had to introduce arbitrary forces “pulling†on the perimeter columns. Apparently the core columns warped in such a way that they could exert this pulling force!
Sorry I’m getting carried away…
Comment by David H (PE) — August 19, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
Well, this will keep Steve EM somewhat happy, I think:
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — September 8, 2006 @ 10:21 am
Yeah, check out today’s Desert News (hat tip: arJ).
Comment by john f. — September 8, 2006 @ 11:03 am
I put up a separate thread on the news today. (Sorry, I didn’t see your guys comments here)
Comment by Clark Goble — September 8, 2006 @ 1:25 pm