Jonesing on conspiracy theories (another Prof Jones article)

[st4]

From PittsburghLive.com<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Jonesing on conspiracy theories<br><br>By Bill Steigerwald<br>TRIBUNE-REVIEW<br>Sunday, November 20, 2005</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>You can drive yourself nuts with conspiracy theories.<br><br>Many of our fellow Americans already have. Just go to the nearest PC and start googling. The Oklahoma City bombing. TWA Flight 800. The 9/11 terror attacks.<br><br>Was Timothy McVeigh actually in cahoots with Iraqis? Were scores of credible witnesses just having simultaneous hallucinations in 1996 when they saw something streaking toward TWA Flight 800? Or were they all really watching a shoulder-fired Stinger missile shot by some al-Qaida type?<br><br>Who knows what really happened? How can a good citizen ever find out the truth or anything close to it? Even with the wonders of the Internet, it's somewhere between hopeless and impossible.<br><br>Look what happens when you read the academic paper questioning the official version of the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings that Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones recently posted at <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html">physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->.<br><br>Jones is an honest-to-goodness scientist whose specialties are metal-catalyzed fusion, solar energy and something called archaeometry. The 9,000-word abstract, part of a 2006 book called "The Hidden History of 9/11/2001," asks, "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"<br><br>Hint: The correct answer is not because two airliners slammed into the buildings and started infernos that softened their steel superstructures and caused them to pancake.<br><br>Based on the laws of physics, the virtual indestructibility of steel-framed buildings and the suspiciously fast way WTC towers 1, 2 and especially 7 collapsed, Jones asserts they could only have been brought down the same way Three Rivers Stadium was -- by pre-positioned explosives.<br><br>Now, that's a conspiracy!<br><br>Professor Jones really did his science homework. He supplies links to slow-motion video of collapsing buildings, discuses their well-engineered innards at length and doggedly critiques the official explanation. Jones isn't the first to make this shocking/unbelievable claim (see <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.wtc7.net/">wtc7.net</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->). But it's hard to imagine anyone making it clearer.<br><br>His most impressive argument: The mysterious way that WTC 7 -- a 47-story, steel-framed monolith that suffered almost no serious structural or fire damage -- dropped with symmetric precision neatly into its own footprint seven hours after the attacks.<br><br>You don't have to be a physicist to see that WTC 7's graceful, 6.6-second demise deserves a perfect 10 in the controlled-demolition event. It's also interesting to know that no steel-framed building in history ever totally collapsed from a fire until 9/11/2001, when three did in about eight hours.<br><br>Like any good conspiracy-monger, Jones raises lots of good but unanswerable questions and supplies few answers. He doesn't pretend to know who'd actually do such a terrible thing, or how they managed to pre-place all those explosives without being caught. He doesn't finger the Conspiracy Industry's usual suspects -- the CIA, the Jews, the Michigan Militia, the neocons -- but says it probably wasn't Muslims.<br><br>Jones, who wasn't returning calls Wednesday evening, asks only that his hypothesis be investigated scientifically by a truly independent body. That completely rules out the U.S. government -- which is just as well.<br><br>No matter how obvious, simple or logical it sounds, you should never completely believe the official version. And given our federal government's sorry track record on truth-telling, that's the only rational thing a good citizen should do.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><br>Bill Steigerwald can be reached at (412) 320-7983 or bsteigerwald@tribweb.com.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_395972.html">pittsburghlive.com/x/trib...95972.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[smiths]

well i just read his report from beginning to end and i cannot see how anyone can deny the basic facts of these collapses,<br>the whole thread about controlled demolition is essentially pointless because the other theory that 3 buildings collapsed in some other manner on that day is so unlikely as to be as good as impossible,<br>let me put my non existent reputation on the line and once again say,<br>anything other than controlled demolition is 'impossible'<br>that is not conforming to the laws of physics as we understand them <p></p><i></i>

[dbeach]

From 11/22/63 to 9/11/01 to 7/7/05 the crimes remained unsolved ..WHO benefits from these tragedies?<br><br>I see the ascent of family bush and the descent of Family Kennedy..Its way more complicated than that <br>BUT 11/22/63 is what got me thinking about govt corruption and TREASON from the highest offices <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

I can only conclude that people <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>want</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to be conned. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

What's disturbing about this, whichever side of CD you are on, is the source. The Pittsburg Trib is VERY conservative, funded by Richard Scaife, maybe the wealthiest Republican supporter out there. And he's dirty, no doubt:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>For a time, Scaife headed Forum World Features, a publishing organ later publicly named as a front organization of the CIA. The CIA, however, has long denied any involvement with Scaife. <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mellon_Scaife#CIA_Front">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ric...#CIA_Front</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Here's about Forum World Features. I'm going to post a longer piece about them by Lew Rockwell over in the "any f...ing questions" thread.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Scaife's one foray into international publishing represents perhaps the most curious of his publishing enterprises. In 1973, he became the owner of Kern House Enterprises, a U.S.-registered company. Kern House ran Forum World Features, a London-based news agency that supplied feature material to a large number of papers around the world, including at one time about thirty in the U.S. Scaife abruptly closed down Forum in 1975, shortly before Time Out, a British weekly, published a purported 1968 CIA memorandum, addressed to then-director Richard Helms, which described Forum as a CIA-sponsored operation providing "a significant means to counter Communist propaganda." The Forum-CIA tie, which lasted into the seventies, has been confirmed by various British and American publications over the years, and it was confirmed independently by a source in connection with this article. <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://archives.cjr.org/year/81/4/scaife_part2.asp">archives.cjr.org/year/81/..._part2.asp</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Some of you may find it comforting that he was a major force behind the attacks on clinton, funding the American Spectator's attacks on him. He also endowed a new school of public policy at Pepperdine and gave it to Independent Prosecutor Kenneth Star as a "present" for his fine work against clinton. I don't find this comforting. Just as with Clinton, there's fire in the 9/11 smoke but I don't like this little network at all. What's their agenda?<br><br> I think this suggests that the CIA has actually turned on Bush. <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

I think it clearly suggests that the CIA wants to spread the "controlled demolition" theory. <p></p><i></i>

[st4]

Qutb, I'm really starting to grow tired of your insults on threads directed toward people that bring evidence forward that supports controlled demolition. Your hero, Indira Singh, even believes that WTC 7 was "brought down" by controlled demolition:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1993.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1993.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[nomo]

It is still remarkable that a good deal of promotion of the CD theory comes from the Right. That fact, and the rather skimpy "evidence" should make everyone stop and think twice. Someone just <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>might</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> be playing with your head here. As visitors to this board you're all undoubtedly very well aware of that fact.<br><br>And it's disingenuous to suggest that Qutb, or myself, "know all": we don't. We're just not convinced by the evidence that's been put out there. Moreover, we think there are other much more damning and provable observations to be made about the events of 9/11, and insisting on the improbabable only hurts that cause.<br><br>Is all I'm saying.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[st4]

It's round! And explosives brought down those buildings! Wake up! But I suppose someone pretending to be asleep can't wake up now can they. And you putting "" around the word "evidence" doesn't make it "skimpy" azzhole! The fact that people like you are on message boards like this suggesting that that evidence is "skimpy" only proves even more that it's not! HAHAHAHA! Put quotes around this mother fu@ker:<br><br>"BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM. And THEN the tower came down." <p></p><i></i>

[nomo]

Dood, chill out. This point may be lost on you, but your continuous, childish ridiculing of those who are skeptical of your pet theory isn't exactly advancing your cause. It's widely understood that when people resort to name-calling it's because their argument is rather weak. But perhaps saddest of all is that it makes you look <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>exactly</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> like the classical stereotype of the conspiracy nut -- and the rest of us by extension.<br><br>Oh, and about this "boom boom boom" argument, wouldn't that be the kind of sound you'd be hearing when a massive tower comes crashing down? Just askin'. <p></p><i></i>

[st4]

"Dude", the "BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM" was heard BEFORE the towers came down. And NO, I'm not going to "chill out"... "dude". LOL! Fu@k you dude LOL. <p></p><i></i>

[nomo]

Whatever man. Knock yourself out.<br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :| --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif ALT=":|"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[st4]

Whatever dude LOL. <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

And soon Karl Schwarz is going to show us all the proof he has that the plane that hit the north tower was in fact a 737 and not a 767. And then, those evil Bush neocons are finished! <p></p><i></i>

[st4]

Care to elaborate??? <p></p><i></i>