Steve Jones and BYU
I’m almost loath to post this after the lengthen and somewhat distasteful 9/11 thread. However since many read that it is probably appropriate to put up some news about the aftermath. I was alerted to this statement on the BYU Physics page. The statement was reposted on several of the University’s engineering department pages with a few changes as well. For instance here’s the statement at the College of Engineering and Technology page:
Brigham Young University has a policy of academic freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas. Through the academic process, ideas should be advanced, challenged, and debated by peer-review in credible venues. We believe in the integrity of the academic review process and that, when it is followed properly, peer-review is valuable for evaluating the validity of ideas and conclusions.
The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones’s hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU’s own faculty members. Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.
I’m relieved.
Some could say that it is somewhat disloyal of the university to make such a blatant statement that they do not support his paper, but, given the touchy nature of the subject matter thorughout the nation (as evidenced by the insanely long comment thread generated by the original post), I think it was prudent.
Oh, and I’m with Clark. Fluoride.
Comment by Naiah Earhart — November 23, 2005 @ 10:32 pm
Me too! As long as they keep killing lots of brown people I say double good!
Comment by JAYBIRD — November 23, 2005 @ 11:10 pm
Thanks for the post.
I know I was very harsh on Jones on the earlier tread. But while I am grateful as a BYU alum the University has distanced itself from this nut job, it is sad to see a career end like this. Whether he resigns, eventually loses tenure or hangs on as deadwood, it’s sad for him and his family.
Comment by Steve EM — November 24, 2005 @ 3:21 am
Yea. I would feel alot more brave and free if that paranoid psychopath would stop asking silly questions. Today we should all thank Jesus for the Bush administration and the protection they have provided us from the evil terrorists. I am also thankfull for all the good torture.
Comment by JAYBIRD — November 24, 2005 @ 9:29 am
Trolls work better when they are less obvious.
Comment by jjohnsen — November 24, 2005 @ 10:36 am
Judgeing from past posts I dont think many of you would know OBVIOUS if it bit you in the ass.
Comment by JAYBIRD — November 24, 2005 @ 8:15 pm
Steve EM,
Who are you and why is this so personal to you?
–Alma Teao Wilson
Comment by Alma Teao Wilson — November 25, 2005 @ 2:24 am
Alma,
I’m hanging w/ Steve EM’s family this holiday weekend and he said it’s ok for me to respond (they’re getting some packages ready for their son on a mission.). I met Steve at work and he introduced me to the church. We’re both very unconventional Mormons, hence the bloggernacle handles we use. Steve really is an Evangelical Mormon and most entertaining in speech. We separate our gospel faith from a Mormon self-salvation culture that both of us don’t have much patience for. Jesus saves!
Steve says he largely answered your questions on the earlier thread. I can vouch that he’s expert on passive fire protection systems, as he developed many of the products I sell.
Comment by antiprude — November 25, 2005 @ 11:17 am
The BYU statement reminds me of the statements that have been released by institutions employing Intelligent Design proponents.
Comment by Jared — November 25, 2005 @ 6:03 pm
Antiprude,
I have some acquaintance with Steven Jones, and he never struck me as other than sincere and rational about either his faith or his physics.
Rather than character onslaught, I would have thought that Steve EM’s expertise in fire systems design should make him more prone to argue the technical issues.
A theology that de-emphasizes institutions ought to have better relieved Steve EM of embarrassment by association or any need to police a consensus with anything other than argument.
A Christocentric theology, especially a Mormon one that regards each human being as made in the image of God, ought to have heeded this :
Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. (James 3:9)
In short, rather than huffing and puffing, condemning, and then offering faux charity, why does not Steve EM take some time to write and upload a refutation of, say, the half-dozen apparently most egregious points in Jones’ arguments?
My suspicion is that Steve EM’s venom here comes not from his expertise or even his livelihood, but from his political commitments.
Am I wrong?
Comment by Alma Teao Wilson — November 26, 2005 @ 12:04 am
I think, Alma, that the concern comes from the “quack” quotient that those sorts of investigations bring up. It’s the sort of thing that one probably shouldn’t bring up unless one has much more than questions. Further, the physics seems hopelessly contaminated by questions about conspiracy theories. It’s just not good science when one has to accept an elaborate conspiracy without evidence of the conspiracy to accept the hypothesis.
Sorry, it’s not.
That’s not to say in the least that there aren’t conspiracy. Merely that if you are going to make claims like this you have to realize that you require more than just a few physics questions.
I’m sure Dr. Jones is sincere. But I’d really have hoped that he’d have learned his lesson after cold fusion about having good, replicable evidence that can overcome controversy.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 27, 2005 @ 12:15 am
I worked for 2 weeks one summer in one of the upper level floors of one of the towers of the World Trade Center.
During high winds, you could feel the building sway about a foot. It was eery until you got used to it.
Back then, and again after the disaster, I saw TV shows that depicted how the towers were designed around a flexible steel “backbone”, and the steel horizontal pieces for each floor came off of it like ribs.
The towers were designed to withstand wind and minor earthquakes.
However, the towers were not designed for the possibility of catastrophic fires of sufficient intensity and duration to melt the steel backbone. The crashes placed thousands of gallons of jet fuel thoughout several floors at the backbone core. That kind of fire was never reckoned for.
If the crashes had occured very close to the top of the buildings, the pancaking effect would likely not have occurred.
However, once the floors at the crash sites pancaked, the mass of the combined still-rigid floors above that point had built up kinetic energy, and that energy was sufficient to crumple the support stucture of each succeeding floor below.
It was like a domino effect. As each floor below the crash point crumpled, it added to the mass and released more energy with which to crumple the next floor below.
I remember seeing the video wherein the floors above the crash point remained in one big block until it had descended all the way to the bottom.
One couldn’t expect the design engineers in the late 60′s when it was designed to have the foreknowledge to plan for such an event.
However, if any of those engineers had been watching on 9/11/01 and was fully aware of what was going on, I bet they had suspicions that the thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning in the core would have caused failure of the backbone. I don’t know if collapse of the backbone that far down from the top would have led them to figure out that it would have pancaked like it did all the way down. I suspect that someone among the engineers could have figured it out on that day.
Comment by Bookslinger — November 27, 2005 @ 10:38 pm
But while I am grateful as a BYU alum the University has distanced itself from this nut job
I really don’t see how you are qualified to label the man as a nutjob.
He points out the impossibility of the government’s conclusions regarding the cause of the collapse of three seperate buildings , one of which wasn’t even struck by an airplane and had no visible signs of fire at the time of its collapse.
The odds of this occurring are roughly less than one in a trillion.
The NRST admits in its reports that its computer simulations were actually manipulated to favor the outcome and that data was disregarded that didn’t favor that outcome. How can anyone refer to the official report then as credible?
How would having expertise in fire systems make one capable of refuting the laws of physics – required if we are to believe that buildings damaged on the upper floors fall straight down in roughly the same time it would take to drop a rock from the roof?
Did they teach you at that University in Utah that ad hominem is a logical fallacy?
Comment by demidog — November 29, 2005 @ 1:36 am
Re: demidog’s comments.
You’ve managed to repeat inaccurate information and debunked data – exactly what Prof. Jones is relying on.
In reality, there is no mystery in any of the three collapses, and none of the tens of thousands of engineers and forensic scientists who have access to the same evidence have disputed the conclusions of NIST.
It is peculiar, to say the least, that Prof. Jones has not bothered to actually address the evidence of interview any of those involved in the investigations. For those of us who have followed this for the last four years, it is even more peculiar that he would put out a paper that leaves out all of the evidence and testimony inconvenient to his conclusions.
Comment by S. King — November 29, 2005 @ 7:36 am
Re: Announcement about Prof. Stephen Jones
Could anyone here identify the source of the statement above on Prof. Jones? Is it from the BYU Adminisration, each department’s concsensus of professors, or some other source?
Thanks in advance.
Comment by S. King — November 30, 2005 @ 10:47 am
What happened to the link. Took a look at it a couple of days ago, but it disappeared.
I started looking through the site and I can’t find the announcement anymore. Does anyone know what happened?
Comment by Ian M. Cook — November 30, 2005 @ 2:31 pm
Ian -
it’s easy. “THEY” got rid of the link.
Soon, they’ll get rid of you too.
“THEY”‘re coming after me now t…..aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
-
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — November 30, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
Lol. Perhaps…
Comment by Ian M. Cook — November 30, 2005 @ 6:07 pm
Clark,
The eventual consensus on the cold fusion scandal, as I recall, was that Pons and Fleischman not only jumped the gun, but were somewhat less than forthright even with their raw data, while Jones played things straight all the way along.
Everything you say here is relevant to predicting the social acceptability of an opinion. It is only relevant to predicting the rightness of an opinion to the degree that social acceptability correlates with rightness. I think we are likely to agree that they correlate positively but far from perfectly.
You appear to be using “good science” to mean “sound argument”; moreover, the official explanation of 9/11 is already a conspiracy theory in the literal sense. Ignoring these minor infelicities, you are still begging the question.
A hypothesis is tested not in isolation but against one or more other competing hypotheses. Any evidence against the competing hypotheses raises the probability of what’s left, however poor it looks at first. When did working by elimination become unscientific?
Argue against Jones’ arguments and evidence by all means, but do not rule it out of court.
Comment by Alma Teao Wilson — December 1, 2005 @ 3:06 am
Steve EM…9-11 isnt just going away just because you want it to. Professor Jones will be vindicated. Count on it
Comment by Harlan Felt — December 1, 2005 @ 11:42 pm
Harlan Felt wrote:
“Steve EM…9-11 isnt just going away just because you want it to. Professor Jones will be vindicated. Count on it .”
On what basis do you make that assertion?
Comment by S. King — December 2, 2005 @ 11:04 am
Alma, I think you are discounting the importance of the social nature of opinions.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 2, 2005 @ 1:16 pm
BYU never fails to make me ashamed of my affiliation with the Church. Good thing I have a testimony based on spiritual evidence, or the actions of institutions like BYU would have sent me packing long ago.
If the professor’s conclusions were erroneous, that would have come out after the rigorous peer review. He would have received his just desserts, just as the cold fusion quacks did. By throwing him under the bus before the review process was complete–indeed, before it had even really begun–, BYU’s actions smack of a political agenda, and betray the hypocrisy of the university masquerading as an academic institution.
Why don’t they just drop the facade of academia? They should just admit that they are content being the LDS version of Bob Jones University, and leave it at that.
Comment by Derek S — December 2, 2005 @ 1:24 pm
I like BYU.
Comment by john fowles — December 2, 2005 @ 1:35 pm
Why don’t they just drop the facade of academia? They should just admit that they are content being the LDS version of Bob Jones University, and leave it at that.
Thank you Hyperbole Man. That is simply ridiculous.
Comment by J. Stapley — December 2, 2005 @ 1:37 pm
No more so than their regular suppression of objectivity and intellectual thought.
The gospel is true, but BYU sure isn’t.
Comment by Derek S — December 2, 2005 @ 3:18 pm
To paraphrase Gene England (perhaps unfairly)
BYU is as true as the gospel.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — December 2, 2005 @ 9:26 pm
KOO-KOO
Comment by JAYBIRD — December 3, 2005 @ 3:08 am
Kokomo
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — December 3, 2005 @ 9:52 am
Derek S wrote:
Why don’t they just drop the facade of academia? They should just admit that they are content being the LDS version of Bob Jones University, and leave it at that.
I’m sure it would make things much simpler. Instead of bending over backwards to be “sensitive” about lunatic fringe ravings, they could simply dismiss all criticism from the peanut gallery and concentrate on minding their own business.
Not too long ago, critics put BYU in the target sights because of alleged infringementts of “academic freedom” of the faculty. Now the dogs seem to be barking from the other side of the fence.
I understand that Dr. Jones is a tenured professor. As difficult as it may be for some to imagine, I believe this means that neither BYU nor the church dictate much to him about what he should think or say.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — December 3, 2005 @ 2:56 pm
Derek, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Dr. Jones’ colleagues (who are informed questioners) to put up such comments. Indeed, I think you’ll find that the comments the other physicists and engineers made are somewhat akin to what scientists at universities with ID proponents will publicize.
It seems odd to ask for peer review and then get upset when Dr. Jones’ peers actually review him. After all, it is hard to say that structural engineers are not equipped to comment on Dr. Jones’ claims.
Exactly how one can turn informed comments by peers into a claim that BYU doesn’t have academic freedom and doesn’t have peer review is quite odd to me. Wouldn’t it be censoring and the the denial of academic freedom to cut off the comments of Dr. Jones’ peers?
I’m curious if you can explain what to me seems a contradictory position on the face of it.
Agree or disagree with Dr. Jones. But surely his peers, the vast majority of whom appear to have deep reservations regarding his paper, have the right to be heard too.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 3, 2005 @ 6:04 pm
I find it very distateful that Jones would suggest that bombs destroyed the building but I would find it even more distasteful if some PC orthodoxy prevented him from his expressing his opinion. He does have some scholarly standing to express such an opinion. I certainly hope he is wrong but the truth will prevail.
Comment by GeorgeD — December 3, 2005 @ 7:10 pm
GeorgeD,
I don’t think there is any argument that Prof. Jones has the right to express his opinion. He already has and his paper is available for all to read.
But his critics have every right to express their opinions too, which is what the Department of Physics and Astronomy and other departments have done.
(Why the announcement was removed is unclear to me.)
Comment by S. King — December 3, 2005 @ 10:14 pm
I guess I should have said that I hope that no one censures him for expressing his opinion. I do hope that it is refuted.
Comment by GeorgeD — December 3, 2005 @ 10:49 pm
Guys, give it a rest. The poor guy’s career is over any way you slice it. For that, I do feel bad for him and his family.
Comment by Steve EM — December 4, 2005 @ 5:57 pm
Clark,
Hardly.
Are you now a proponent of the social construction of reality, preaching a form of postmodernism, but, um, denying the power thereof to render everything utterly incoherent?
Received opinion is important for three distinct reasons : First, it helps us sort which debates to join. Second, it helps guide our sense of the initial probabilities of competing hypotheses. Third, it establishes the habits of respect, acknowledgement, and reply that make sound discussion possible.
My concern is with the third of these reasons. You and others of your political inclination seem singularly overanxious to heap scorn upon a decent man who has offered a detailed argument in good faith, and whose intelligence does not compare unfavorably with your own.
Jones seems to me to be acting according to what would once have been widely understood as a dictate of conscience, a phrase of once-wide currency that few now either understand or respect.
Argue heartily, or ignore, or proclaim your own conviction without argument, as you please. A free man stands his own ground—not for him the courtier’s hypervigilant subjection to fashionable opinion or catty undermining of opponents.
A free man does not mistake “department and college administrators”—i.e. two managers who lacked the decency or perhaps the opportunity to sign their names—for the department or college, or these for the truth.
SteveEM,
Schadenfruede in a negligee. But there are worse things to lose than one’s career, as is well attested in scripture. Your attitude makes no sense from your reputed theology. Even the unbelieving Tom Paine knew this :
Comment by Alma Teao Wilson — December 4, 2005 @ 11:33 pm
Alma, no offense, but you’re moving in the non-sequitor direction. To say that there are social implications within science and social aspects to science is not to adopt solipsism or the like.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 5, 2005 @ 1:08 am
Jones has already made one huge faux paux when he states in his paper “thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures.
Thermite is an incendiary and not an explosive. Even someone who has successfully passed Bonehead Chemistry knows that. By blithely equating thermite with explosives like RDX, and saying thermite is “commonly used” as an explosive, he reveals he knows absolutely nothing about his subject.
Comment by AGAviator — December 6, 2005 @ 4:52 pm
Anyone who can believe the history of Joseph Smith and the golden plates should have no difficulty in acepting the official account of nineteen Arab hijackers, directed from an Afghanistan cave by a man with a cell phone.
Comment by Raymond Denson — December 6, 2005 @ 10:22 pm
This thread is basically devoid of physics-oriented analysis. If you want that, see the 911 thread at physorg.com. (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108 ) Pontificating about scientiifc articles by non-scientists is likely to be of little or no value, and this thread certainly shows that……
Even physorg.com is very lacking in this regard, though, so if anybody knows of any Ph.D. level physicists, engineers, or applied mathematicians, please direct them to that thread. In particular, we need an elaboration of Hoffman’s work that incorporates fluid dynamics (see below. Also, I have derived a contradiction form Bazant-Zhou’s ‘elastic dynamic analysis’, whichs declares a .12 dissipation of Kinetic Energy in collapsing the first sound floor. I used high school physics, but would like a “real” physicist to rigorously confirm – or disconfirm – my calculation. Bazant-Zhou’s paper, which appeared just a few days after 911, is pointed to as “proving” that a global collapse was “inevitable”. I believe it does no such thing.)
Most lacking of all is a computer simulation utilizing finite element analysis of the WTC 1 or 2 buildings, complete with fire modeling, that attempts to model more than an initial collapse. THIS WAS NEVER DONE by NIST. Instead, we are asked to rely on the collective intuition of NIST’s engineers and scientists.
In other words, they waive their hands.
There are 2 other detailed physics-oriented papers which point to the impossibility of the US government’s Fairy Tale version of the building collapses. They can be found at
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm
and
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html
As far as I know, there are no irrefutable scientific or engineering papers that show that the Government ‘s Fairy Tale version of the collapses of WTC 1,2, and 7 could possibly have occurred IN THE WAY THEY DID. Two facets of the collapse basically ignored by FEMA, NIST, et. al. are the symmetry and near free-fall speed of the collapses. (In particular, the collapse of WTC 7 was so perfectly symmetrical, that I refuse to discuss it. Furthermore, the free-fall speed of collapse of WTC 1 & 2 should be about 8 seconds or so, but the actual time of collapse was only 12 – 16 seconds.)
Contrary to the mistaken notion of many, the 3 year, $20 Million NIST report never bothers to ATTEMPT showing how a local collapse could possibly turn into a global collapse, never mind a symmetrical one that proceeds at near free fall speed. The FEMA report is an even bigger joke, and if you read Chp. 2 of it’s report ( http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm ), they admit that the heat of 7,000 gallons of burning jet fuel, plus the damage due to impact, is not likely to have been sufficient to initiate collapse (like NIST, they ASSUME that local collapse inevitably leads to global collapse, and just ignore features of collapse that help put the lie to their imaginary hand-waiving).
FEMA says ( p. 2-37) that “The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses.” The report immediately goes on to blame the effects of other combustibles:, “However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings’ contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings. The heat output from theses fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial power generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.”
IN THE SAME CHAPTER, there is a picture of a woman standing in the hole created by the entry of one of the jet planes. Apparently, the unshielded heat from this hypothetical equivalent of a ” large commercial power generating station.” is insufficient to even discomfort her. Her hair is not on fire, her clothes are not smoking, she is fine. You can view additional pictures of her waiving at
http://www.erichufschmid.net/Woman_in_NorthTower_3views.JPG
That an explosion occurred in the basement of at least 1 of the towers is confirmed by numerous witnesses, including that of true 911 hero William Rodriguez. Rodriguez gave testimony to the fraudulent 911 commission 5 TIMES, but not a word of it appears in their report. *
In conclusion, Steven Jones’ paper deserves serious attention, and I fully support his call for an thorough, international re-investigation by scientists and engineers. The NIST and FEMA “investigations” were basically shams, and the destruction of so much of the evidence was unconscionable.
( P.S. You can hear the wonderfully eloquent Jim Hoffman lays out the case against the FEMA Fairy Tale at
http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=4344&page=3&type=all
http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=5608&page=3&type=all
Hoffman’s work has been featured in articles in Science News, Scientific American, Science Digest, and Nature. )
=============================
* re Rodriguez (from reopen911.org):
“On the morning of the 9/11 terrorist attack, Rodriguez single-handedly rescued fifteen people from the World Trade Center’s North Tower. As Rodriguez was the only person at the site with the master key to the North Tower stairwells, he bravely led firefighters up the stairwell, unlocking doors as they ascended, thereby aiding in the successful evacuation of hundreds of additional victims. Rodriguez, at great risk to his own life, then re-entered the Towers three times over, and is believed to be the last person to exit the North Tower alive.”
See also http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/29797.htm
Rodriguez is actually one of a group of 14 or so witnesses that were in the basement floors when the explosions went off, seconds before the tower they were in started collapsing.
Comment by metamars — December 7, 2005 @ 11:09 am
Prof. Jones is scientifically on target. His detractors here obviously know little of science and engineering, and less about the political implications of his paper. Following Galileo: The earth DOES revolve around the sun, regardless of what the Inquisition says.
Dr. Gerald E. Anderson, LTC Corps of Engineers (ret)
Comment by Gerald E. Anderson, Ph.D. — December 12, 2005 @ 8:02 pm
Well Gerald, it’s good you’re already retired, cuz that nutty comment would have meant the end of your working days.
Alma, I’ve never met Jones and have nothing personal against him, professional embarrassment as a BYU alum, yes, but personal animosity, no. In a nut shell (pardon the pun), theories of a conspiracy involving hundreds of people is total nut job stuff.
As per my comment on the other tread, one of the standard tests for resistance to a hydrocarbon fire is UL-1709, which reaches 2000 F in ~3 minutes! The intumescent coatings for these types fires must survive the initial blast wave and then insulate the steel from the 2000 F for a period speced by the customer, typically 1/2 hour. The intumesent coating on the WTC steel was for a much cooler cellulosic fire and likely blew off from the initial fire blast. In short, once those planes hit, the Towers were doomed in the absence of fire fighting equipment that probably doesn’t exist on the planet.
Comment by Steve EM — December 13, 2005 @ 12:19 pm
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Nearly every source I have read (with a few exceptions) have stated that, under the conditions that day, that the fires from the planes would have only burned at 500 F. These are sources that are arguing both for the official theory and the theiory that there were bombs in the building.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — December 13, 2005 @ 1:07 pm
Thank God for the Internet. I saw an amateur journalist the other day who sent 100 e-mails to various newspapers, large and small, throughout the country asking the question in effect: “light of the present controversy, do you editors think that the 9/11 incident should be revisited?”
He received only 1 (one) acknowledgement of his E-mail, and that acknowledgement was NOT a constructive reply.
I would invite all readers of this Blog to try out this experiment.
What agency or secret society has the power and reach to achieve this demonstrated national news censorship?
Comment by Gerald E. Anderson, Ph.D. — December 13, 2005 @ 2:21 pm
Gerald E. Anderson, Ph.D, there is none.
Comment by Eric Russell — December 13, 2005 @ 3:18 pm
Ian:
If you think the source you link to supports your assertion about temperature of the 9/11 fires, you need to review the Celsius-Fahrenheit conversion equation.
Comment by Chris Grant — December 13, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
“The intumesent coating on the WTC steel was for a much cooler cellulosic fire and likely blew off from the initial fire blast. In short, once those planes hit, the Towers were doomed in the absence of fire fighting equipment that probably doesn’t exist on the planet.”
Let’s assume that they were “doomed”, in the sense that a local collapse must have occured.. Please explain to us how a local collapse morphed into a symmetrical, GLOBAL collapse which took only 4 – 8 seconds longer than free fall, and even more mysteriously, how columns that rose over 1000 feet managed to mostly break into 30 foot pieces. My cousin is an architect, and informed me that the basic principle in joining structural steel components is to make the join metal piece as strong as the weaker of the two pieces being joined. Therefore, the joints should NOT be eminently predisposed to failing.
Of course, there’ d be no need for you or anybody else to tell us how this could happen if NIST had bothered to do so, but apparently, saying that “columns failed” is more than sufficient for some experts.
I beg to differ, and certainly Professor Steven E. Jones does, also. Hence his call for another investigation.
The most amazing example of these conveniently fragile columns is the remaining “spire” which rose 60-70 floors, and survived the initial collapse of the North Tower. This “spire” stood straight as an arrow for a few seconds after the collapse of the North Tower, it then began swaying, and shortly afterwards underwent a telescoping, “powderizing” collapse.
I have analyzed this uber weird phenomena, somewhat, at physorg.com. Serious commentary, expecially by individuals with relevant technical backgrounds, would be very much appreciated.
Finally, the pictures of the woman standing in the entrance hole left by one of the WTC planes speaks to temperatures closer to 200 Celsius, not 2000 Farenheit.
Comment by metamars — December 13, 2005 @ 5:38 pm
S. King, this blog “In reality, there is no mystery in any of the three collapses, and none of the tens of thousands of engineers and forensic scientists who have access to the same evidence have disputed the conclusions of NIST.”
Dear S. King,
For your information, the forensic evidence was moved the old NYC landfill at Fresh Kills under heavy security, with little information on same conveyed to the Public.
Fresh Kills had been purchased a year or two earlier by the Carlisle Group.
After Fresh Kills the steel was shipped to Communist China under an arrangement which must have been negotiated some time in advance.
Is is possible that you are referring to the “tens of thousands” of CHINESE engineers and forensic scientists. No doubt they have a better theory on what happened than do the American people.
Comment by Gerald E. Anderson, Ph.D. — December 13, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
Who is Steve EM and why does he keep acting like this is the end of Dr. Steven Jones’ career? I think it’s great that this issue is being covered in the scientific community. I think there has been far too much silence regarding Sept. 11.
This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest Dr. Jones is in jeopardy of losing his job or even his credibility. If he’s wrong he’s wrong, but from what I’ve gathered Jones’ inquiry is genuine and not motivated by a political agenda.
Comment by Stephen Bollich — December 13, 2005 @ 10:05 pm
Stephen Bollich,
Its just the way organizations work, nothing unique to BYU. BYU and Jones’ peers have distanced themselves from him (it was about time!). The next step is either Jones’ resignation, loss of tenure after due process, or hanging on as deadwood. BYU has much of the latter. Any of those outcomes is an effective end of his career (not that he can’t start a new one). A side issue is Jones’ research funding will dry up too (contracts/grants not renewed, etc.), and scientific research is expensive. Jones may be a sincere nut, but he’s a nut just the same. The fat lady already sang on this one, and we’re just watching the epilogue.
Oh, the EM stands for Evangelical Mormon. Steve EM is my bloggernacle handle to distinguish me from Napoleonic Steve at BCC. You don’t want to know what I used to go by. Most here found it very offensive.
Comment by Steve EM — December 14, 2005 @ 7:00 pm
Mr Steve EM is someone that Hitler would be proud of. There is a cabal between Neocon Zionism (not Judaism) and Scottish Rite Freemasonry to change America and the World, and it is succeeding in erasing objective Truth. It controls the “mainstream media” and has very much weakened Christianity with its attacks.
The BYU target is, however, academia and physical science itself. Bush today restated the 911 lie that a jet fuel (kerosene) fire brought down the WTC. I guess we better rewrite the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics while we are redoing international torture procedures and the “Patriot” Act.
The real terrorists were in WTC 7 and are still at large.
Comment by Gerald E. Anderson, Ph.D. — December 14, 2005 @ 7:19 pm
Gerald,
Don’t forget about the Chinese!
If the rum sodden tapioca wasn’t your fancy, a kirsch or apricot brandy drenched cake works just as well. Either one will make you feel so much better.
Comment by Steve EM — December 14, 2005 @ 7:33 pm
It’s the Illuminati you really have to fear! The secret society inside the secret society. Only Sidney Bristol can save us from Rimbaldi.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 14, 2005 @ 7:36 pm
Dear Steve:
I’d do a rum with you but i thought that EM’s abjured from those mind-altering things. Be nice. Jerry
Comment by Gerald E. Anderson, Ph.D. — December 14, 2005 @ 8:14 pm
Really, the Illuminati is just a cover for the true masters: Those who watch over the Holy Grail.
Plus the Trilateral comission is currently on the outs with their alien masters, so Fox Mulder might come out of hiding.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — December 15, 2005 @ 12:20 am
“Jones may be a sincere nut, but he’s a nut just the same.”
Fortunately, in science, ad hominem attacks cannot prevail in the long run, and usually aren’t even entertained in the short run. Can you imagine going to a scientific conference and hearing one speaker attack another with crass comments like this? The above is a political statement, all too effective in swaying the unscientific masses, but quite useless in a scientific context.
Then again, Steve EM’s purpose isn’t scientific, now is it?
Everybody remembers the name of Galileo today, nobody remembers the name of the Inquisitors who found his investigations and beliefs so threatening.
Whether you call Jones a heretic or a “nutcase”, if the truth is shown to be close to that understood by Jones, myself, and many others, all your name-calling will be clearly understood to be nothing but propaganda, even by non-scientists.
Comment by metamars — December 16, 2005 @ 8:51 pm
Jerry,
Hope your feeling better. As far as Mormons and booze, IMHO, for medicinal purposes, it has its place. Sure beats the nursing home meds, n’est-ce pas?
Metamars,
Why do I say Jones is a nut job? Because he is! As is well known in the bloggernacle, I’m a plain (sometimes blunt and crude) talker and about as far away from the Joe Mormon, Steve Covey, GA wannabe types who have a knack for obscuring the obvious. I trust people until they give me a reason not to. When someone speaks w/ authority on a subject I know quite a bit about, and I find them to be spouting nonsense, as is the case w/ Jones, then everything they say is suspect.
To point out the obvious, planes loaded w/ fuel for east-west coast flights are flown into the two World Trade Towers and the Pentagon. A forth plane is ditched due to a passenger revolt. Hydrocarbon fires, known to soften steel and destroy concrete, ensue in the Trade Towers. The fires are witnessed by billions. Soon there after, the towers collapse in a floor upon floor, repetitive pancake fashion.
Now Jones comes in, and rather than apply Occam’s razor, speaks of a conspiracy that would have involved at least hundreds, if not thousands. That’s nuts. Ergo, Jones is a nut.
Now you’re going to say, what of WTC 7? Try losing part of a building when two nearby skyscrapers collapse, and leave the damaged structure burning for hours on end, w/ fuels that included heating oil, w/o any meaningful firefighting possible, and see what happens. We did.
Why my short fuse towards Jones? I’m a BYU alum (undergrad). I worked hard for my degree and value it. Jones embarrasses BYU and thus embarrasses me personally. Think of having someone take your diploma off the wall and defecate on it. That’s how I feel about Jones actions. I’m glad the university and his peers have distanced themselves from him, but they were far too slow to do so. For him personally, I’m sad. I hope he gets the professional help he desperately needs.
Comment by Steve EM — December 17, 2005 @ 2:35 pm
We should all be thankful that we can field our opinions on an excellent blogsite such as this, during a time where Big Brother controls the Mainstream Media and many other avenues of dissent. The main question is how long Big Brother will allow us this limited freedom of expression.
Comment by Gerald E. Anderson — December 17, 2005 @ 5:06 pm