BYU Physics professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled

by **Qutb** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:31 am

Folks, you're being conned.

by **st4** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:53 pm

How profound.

by **Qutb** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:01 pm

I've been profound enough in the "controlled demolition" thread, which currently is at 338 posts. I hate to repeat myself and I'm really tired of this subject anyway. Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason why you folks cannot find anyone who does or has done controlled demolition for a living, who agrees with your theories?

by **st4** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Mike Malloy Discusses BYU Prof., Steven Jones November 12, 2005 By ST4 <a href="http://www.airamericaradio.com/">Air America Radio</a> host, Mike Malloy, discussed on his show last night the recent news of BYU Professor of Physics, Steven E. Jones' professional opinion that "pre-positioned explosives" brought down three World Trade Center buildings on 9-11. On Thursday, November 10, Salt Lake City's <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html">Deseret Morning News</a> wrote: [Prof. Jones] is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations. "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes. As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation." [snip] Link to article: <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html">deseretnews.com/dn/view/0...32,00.html</a> Salt Lake City's CBS afilliate, KUTV, also ran a story on Thursday about Prof. Jones titled "Collapse or Implosion: BYU Professor Has Theory About 9/11 Attacks." Here is an excerpt from that broadcast: Reporter, Brian Mullahy:...We saw the planes hit, the explosions and fire so hot, fortress towers could not stand. Steven Jones says not so fast. Prof. Steven Jones: They're sticking with this one hypothesis. Its almost like they have blinders on 'its got to be fires and damage.' Reporter, Brian Mullahy: Jones is a 20-year physics professor at BYU, who's penned an academic paper raising another hypothesis - explosives may have been pre-positioned in the buildings. Prof. Steven Jones: Notice how it's straight down (Jones says referring to the fall of Building 7). Reporter, Brian Mullahy: Especially intriguing to Jones, (the destruction of) World Trade Center 7, damaged and ablaze from tower debris but never hit by a plane. Prof. Steven Jones: Symmetrically now, it doesn't topple over, as you might expect, from what we call the second law of thermodynamics. It comes straight down. This is the goal of prepositioned explosives in a controlled demolition. The CBS KUTV news piece can be viewed in its entirety by clicking here: <a href="http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html">kutv.com/topstories/local...34334.html</a> Copy and Paste the link below into your browser to download and listen to Mike Malloy's show from Friday night:  The Mike Malloy Show, November 11, 2005 (31MB download) www.whiterosesociety.org/content/malloy/MalloyShow-(11-11-2005).mp3<hr></blockquote>

by **banned** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:44 pm

n/t.

by **Insider** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:14 pm

"I've been profound enough in the "controlled demolition" thread, which currently is at 338 posts." Being a blow hard doesn't equal being profound. If you had been profound it wouldn't be nescessary to constantly post the same emotional garbage over and over and over... " I hate to repeat myself and I'm really tired of this subject anyway" Yeah, I've been tired of authority worshipping denialists like yourself for years. :-P Even the owner of WTC7 admitted it was a controlled demolition.

by **slimmouse** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:29 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason why you folks cannot find anyone who does or has done controlled demolition for a living, who agrees with your theories?<hr></blockquote> I think Ive spoken personally with at least 3 such people QUTB, and each of them agree with the CD angle 100%. I aint shittin ya to score points here. And you KNOW I speak to people about this ( for a living )

by **nomo** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:20 pm

You've spoken to 3 of those experts? So, who are they? What are their credentials? And what exactly did they say? What were their professional arguments in favor of CD?

by **slimmouse** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:32 pm

The collapse of those 3 buildings defy the laws of logic, physics and gravity. Any half intelligent amongst common folk can see that fact with their own eyes. Which truly makes me wonder HTF any of the folks on here can be suggesting anything other than CD. unless of course......... Anyways. Whatever. Go get Jimmys millions. Want my best guess ? The silence from the "official scientists" will make a mouse pissing on cotton sound loud.

by **proldic** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:44 pm

I own the tape, and would have to hook up my VCR to check the exact wording, but I did watch it many times over and over thinking about it awhile back, and besides the Silverstein comment, which generally has been accurately repeated, I believe it was a couple of quotes from members of a demolition crew -- over shots of people in various places in the rubble -- using the term "pull it" when referring to demolishing a building in the same episode. It was the demolition crew working on the clean-up, supposedly. To my mind, it's NOVA that inserted that "meme" originally. Unless you think that PBS is somehow incapable of doing that?

by **Qutb** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:06 pm

proldic - apparently, the quote that has convinced people that "pull" is a term used in the controlled demolition business to refer to controlled implosion is "getting ready to pull building 6", which is heard in the pbs documentary. The problem is, accordig to the folks at implosionworld.com, WTC6 (which had only a few stories) wasn't demolished with explosives. It was literally pulled down with cables affixed to heavy machinery.

by **michael miering** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:09 pm

st4, Quote --------------------------------------------------------That about says it all. Maybe demo crews should just pour some diesel fuel on buildings and set 'em on fire instead of spending all that time & energy that it would take planning and planting explosives in buildings to achieve a such a tidy rubble pile like WTC 7. ------------------------------------------------------you've nailed it st4, apart from, just add 2 pancakes to the tallest of tall buildings, ie pancake the top 2 floors and watch the rest come a tumbling down, of course add a drop or two of syrup, why go to all that trouble of CD, when a gallon or two of fuel and 2 pancakes will bring any building down?

by **Qutb** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:19 pm

insider - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Being a blow hard doesn't equal being profound. If you had been profound it wouldn't be nescessary to constantly post the same emotional garbage over and over and over...<hr></blockquote> That's funny, because if my memory serves me correctly, the CD proponents provided very few substantial arguments in that thread, and confined themselves to repeating the same old fallacious talking points they've memorized. When I debunked their talking points using a little common sense, they for the most part resorted to indignant cries of "disinfo", before they went back to repeating the same talking points over and over again. But then you're the guy who recommended "Loose Change" <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Even the owner of WTC7 admitted it was a controlled demolition.<hr></blockquote> If Mike Rivero told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

by **slimmouse** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>That's funny, because if my memory serves me correctly, the CD proponents provided very few substantial arguments in that thread, and confined themselves to repeating the same old fallacious talking points they've memorized.<hr></blockquote> Hey QUTB, Heres a substantial argument; <blockquote>Quote:<hr>“I am accusing the New York Times of being cowards, traitors and censoring important facts about 9/11, including my challenge to give away one million dollars to anyone who can categorically prove the validity of the government’s official version of how the Twin Towers collapsed,” said Walter Sunday in a telephone interview from New York about an ongoing contest he is sponsoring, the details being outlined on his web site www.reopen911.org. QUOTE END--> <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1940.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1940.topic</a> Shouldnt we be bringing this into the discussion ? Whats your take on a millionaire bringing the whole 9/11 issue into focus again, by offering a MILLION dollars to an "official collapse theorist" such as yourself ? What do you think the motive is here, regardless of the fact that you can never win, either scientifically or otherwise ?

by **Qutb** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:46 pm

Slimmouse, Walter should give that money to NIST, if he has any decency. But of course, he doesn't specify what he means by "the government's ofiicial version". I assume he's referring to any explanation which doesn't involve a controlled demolition using explosive charges, and I assume what he means is "prove there were no explosives". That's proving a negative, and Walter is himself free to decide what he considers categorical proof. That's why the old "I'll give you a million dollars if..." trick is generally considered an inane rhetorical device.

BYU Physics professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled

Re: Jones interviews Jones

Re: Jones interviews Jones

Re: Re: Jones interviews Jones

Mike Malloy Discusses BYU Prof., Steven Jones

Forest. Trees. Snore.

Larry Silverstein admitted WTC7 was "pulled" on PB

Re: Re: Jones interviews Jones

Re: Re: Jones interviews Jones

Re: Only the brain dead.

Re: Even the Owner Said It

Re: Even the Owner Said It

just start with 2 pancakes, then pour..

Re: Larry Silverstein admitted WTC7 was "pulled" o

Re: Larry Silverstein admitted WTC7 was "pulled" o

Re: Larry Silverstein admitted WTC7 was "pulled" o

Who is online