Jonesing on conspiracy theories (another Prof Jones article)

by **st4** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:05 pm

please stay on topic, dude LOL

by **orz** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:18 pm

I've forgotten what the topic even was... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> (sorry...)

by **nomo** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:20 pm

So you're saying that Physics has nothing to do with the way those buildings fell? Sure it did. But not fusion physics, Jones's specialty. I suspect something old-fashioned like "gravity" might have played a substantial role here. (Of course, I'm merely a Web developer, so what do I know.) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. <hr></blockquote> Have you ever stood beneath those towers, ST4? Physics would suggest that structures that immensely huge don't topple over. The only way for them to go was down. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>My opinion is, based on the videotapes...<hr></blockquote> Sigh. Opinions, based on videotapes are not scientific evidence. Remember Dr. Frist's video diagnosis of Terri Schiavo? At any rate, this guy recanted his original statement. (Forced by the gov't, no doubt.) Lastly, in spite of some of the credentials of these people, they're still not offering anything beyond the same old armchair analysis of reports from panicked eyewitnesses and grainy Web videos that have been repeated everywhere else.

by **st4** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:42 pm

OK, whatever you say web developer/musician <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

by **NewKid** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm willing to bet Mr. Jones is soon going to team up with Dr. Griffin, and they'll go on a speaking tour together, persuading even more 9/11 skeptics of their disinformation.<hr></blockquote> Hey Qutb, I thought of you when I saw this. Scroll down to the 911blogger ad on the left. <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002052.htm" target="top">www.bradblog.com/archives/00002052.htm</a>

by **smiths** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:47 am

so jones is a specialist in fusion physics but wouldnt know much about basic physics is that right? so if albert einstein had studided the events of 9/11 and given the opinion that it had to be controlled demolition we would say "no albert, youre not qualified" and that bringing em down in front of tv cameras is impossible, ha, like when the magician produces the rabbit in the hat he actually did it, cos illusion is not possible, ahhhhhhhrrrrrgggggggg, the fucking antenna is on top of the core, it went first, a massive section started falling skewed and just vapourised, ahhhrrggggg and of course the cia wants to push the CD theory, because its so fantastical and confronting that 99% of people you propose it to reject it, just too much, but it dont change the fact that it is FUCKING WELL TRUE

by **NewKid** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:10 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Talking of impossibility: It's absolutely 100% impossible to demolish a building with explosives in front of the cameras of all the tv networks and then make the entire scientific "community" except the usual few right-wing whackos, in addition to the entire controlled demolition "community", believe it was caused by a plane. Cannot be done. Simple as that. <hr></blockquote> Well, I won't say it can't be done, but is our choice really conventional controlled demolition or the official NIST explanation? Might there be other sophisticated weaponry that is capable of such a feat? And how large is the community of experts who can intelligently opine on what happened to those buildings? And of that group, how many that aren't affiliated with NIST have taken the time to review all of the findings and backup material put out in their reports. I don't know the answer, but I'm not sure it's that large of a community. I've seen street magician David Blaine do some amazing tricks. I'm sure the magicians in the intelligence community can do some too. And speaking of magicians and Steven Jones, haven't I read somewhere that Mormons have a disproportional representation in the intelligence community? <a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/06/firm.html" target="top">rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/06/firm.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 11/23/05 2:15 am

by **Qutb** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:24 pm

smith said - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>ahhhhhhhrrrrrgggggggg, the fucking antenna is on top of the core, it went first, a massive section started falling skewed and just vapourised, ahhhrrggggg<hr></blockquote> No, it didn't. Read the NIST report, and look at the photos in the report, from various angles. There's no doubt what happened: the section above the floor that gave first tilts 8 degrees before the progressive collapse begins, to the side(the side that was hit by the plane) where perimeter columns buckle and fail, and that creates the optical illusion of the antenna starting to fall first. FEMA were seemingly fooled by this optical illusion in their initial sloppy investigation - inexplicably, if not perhaps intentionally, to put that red herring out there?

by **Qutb** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:35 pm

NewKid said - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Well, I won't say it can't be done, but is our choice really conventional controlled demolition or the official NIST explanation? Might there be other sophisticated weaponry that is capable of such a feat?<hr></blockquote> Like what? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And how large is the community of experts who can intelligently opine on what happened to those buildings? And of that group, how many that aren't affiliated with NIST have taken the time to review all of the findings and backup material put out in their reports. I don't know the answer, but I'm not sure it's that large of a community. <hr></blockquote> Well, there's everyone who does or has done controlled demolition for a living around the world, none of whom has ever supported the cd theory in public (in the words of the site administrator of explosionworld.com, the theory is "ridiculously asinine" for "a million reasons"). If the twin towers fell due to explosives, it would have been immediately recognizable to every member of this profession, I'm sure. Structural engineers around the world are going to be reviewing the NIST reports for years to come. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I've seen street magician David Blaine do some amazing tricks. I'm sure the magicians in the intelligence community can do some too.<hr></blockquote> But there's no evidence of it and no idea about how it could be done and NIST has provided a perfectly plausible, detailed and well-researched explanation for why it happened. In short, that particular emperor has no clothes on. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And speaking of magicians and Steven Jones, haven't I read somewhere that Mormons have a disproportional representation in the intelligence community?<hr></blockquote> Bingo.

by **FourthBase** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 4:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Well, there's everyone who does or has done controlled demolition for a living around the world, none of whom has ever supported the cd theory in public (in the words of the site administrator of explosionworld.com, the theory is "ridiculously asinine" for "a million reasons"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> . If the twin towers fell due to explosives, it would have been immediately recognizable to every member of this profession, I'm sure.<hr></blockquote> This is absurd, you can't sincerely believe this proves anything. - Only the people who do controlled demolitions are qualified? - Only the ones who publicly support a theory that might end their career count? - We're supposed to be impressed by you quoting the opinion of a website administrator? - How are you sure that it would have been immediately recognizable? (Hints: No; no; we're not; you're not.) Qutb, MAYBE IF YOU STAY AWAY FROM CD THREADS FOR A LITTLE WHILE SOME OF US MIGHT BEGIN TO BELIEVE YOU'RE SINCERE ABOUT IT.

by **NewKid** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Well, there's everyone who does or has done controlled demolition for a living around the world, none of whom has ever supported the cd theory in public (in the words of the site administrator of explosionworld.com, the theory is "ridiculously asinine" for "a million reasons"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> . If the twin towers fell due to explosives, it would have been immediately recognizable to every member of this profession, I'm sure.<hr></blockquote> Didn't Van Romero come out and then later recant? Haven't others said it looked like CD? Frankly, that's just not probative one way or the other. They haven't investigated it and they would be subject to so much scorn for even suggesting it publicly that it's not hard to see why they wouldn't do that. And with all due respect to inflammatory quasi-anonymous message board postings, I haven't seen any detailed responses or the million reasons from the CD community showing why it couldn't be done. I'd love to see it, just haven't yet. That said, I have no problem with CD being bullshit if that's what the evidence shows. Indeed, I suspect it probably is if for no other reason than Jones and Griffin support it. But that's a far cry from proving what NIST did. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Structural engineers around the world are going to be reviewing the NIST reports for years to come. <hr></blockquote> Really? In how much detail? Aren't there some UK engineers bitching about NIST not providing some of their modeling or something? Can anyone really doublecheck NIST's work from reading their report and without examing the physical evidence? How certain is NIST of their conclusions? Have they changed their theories at all during their investigation? How hard do you really think it would be for a sophisticated intelligence or military outfit to stack the deck on the NIST commission? I have a vague recollection of reading OSS psyop manuals on faking scientific articles and Northwoods planning documents on faking all sorts of shit. Back in the 60s. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>But there's no evidence of it and no idea about how it could be done and NIST has provided a perfectly plausible, detailed and well-researched explanation for why it happened. In short, that particular emperor has no clothes on.<hr></blockquote> Because it hasn't really been investigated. Qutb, I know you're a smart guy, but without any training, how can you really be certain what NIST has done is scientifically convincing? I doubt you or any of us can. We have to rely on the assumption that genuine scientific skepticism by the expert community and examination of their findings would reveal the NIST flaws. But as I asked earlier, how many experts will really take the time to completely audit NIST's work product and double check their stuff? Their final report's only been out a few months right? And the building 7 report is not in final form is it? Expert witnesses put out bullshit all the time in civil cases. I don't think it would be that difficult for Mihopers to produce a NIST like report. Hell, their conclusions may even be plausible, even if they're ultimately wrong. What sort of military technology might be capable of it? Don't know, but it sure was convenient to have all three of those buildings go down like that for everyone to see. I guess the LIHOPers just got really lucky with the psyop effect and the buidling destruction. And so did Worldcom, Enron and the command center folks in 7 and who knows who else who might have wanted stuff in those buildings to go away. Look, I have the same questions for Hoffman and the CD folks. They have a huge burden to show it was conventional CD. I think you and others have raised alot of problems with their arguments. But all I'm saying is that being absolutely convinced of anything in this deal (except maybe that the official story is bs) is going to take alot more proof than any side in the debate has right now.

by **Byrne** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:02 am

I found this: <a href="http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/oct%2026/Corbett%20Testimony%20FINAL.pdf" target="top">www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/oct%2026/Corbett%20Testimony%20FINAL.pdf</a> which is a Statement by Prof. Glenn P. Corbett, Assistant Professor of Fire Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, before the Committee on Science, House of Representatives, United States Congress. Statement entitled “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps” , dated October 26, 2005 Excerpts: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>“Over three years has passed since NIST began its investigation into the World Trade Center disaster. We have now come to the conclusion of this $16 million effort search for answers about what happened in the twin towers. The investigation has taken much longer than anticipated, including the fact that the World Trade Center (building) 7 investigation will likely not be completed next summer.” "During the course of the WTC investigation, I have had serious concerns about some of the findings and conclusions that NIST has drawn. Other individuals, including some people on the federal advisory committee, have also had concerns. While this hearing is not the appropriate place to debate technical issues, I would suggest that a more formal mechanism be developed to officially address comments from the public. Such a protocol should include the technical basis for which NIST rejects or accepts the content a public comment." "Overall, I have been disappointed by the lack of aggressiveness that has characterized not only the World Trade Center investigation but the Rhode Island Station Nightclub investigation as well. Instead of a “gumshoe” inquiry that left no stone unturned, I believe the investigations were treated more like research projects in which they waited for information to flow to them. In both investigations, they were reluctant to use the subpoena power given to them under the NCST Act. To some extent, the lack of assertiveness was the likely the result of the legal opinions given to NIST by staff attorneys."<hr></blockquote> The professor has reported before to the Committee on Science (1/May/02). he seems to be one of the academic/industry voices who was calling for an in-depth investigation, albeit his interest seems more to be in the field of enhancing existing building codes, improvements in building design methodologies etc. So this is a respected academic critical of the NIST investigations. I'm not sure about his meaning at the end of the first paragraph above: Is he stating that the WTC-7 investigation will likely not be completed next summer PERIOD or will likely not be completed by next summer.? Of course by then, the next big thang will be upon us .......& the attention will be focussed elsewhere -how convenient.

by **Qutb** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:19 am

NewKid said - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Because it hasn't really been investigated.<hr></blockquote> That is nonsense. Have you read the report? On what grounds can you say it hasn't been investigated? NIST didn't devote a lot of time to considering the controlled demolition theory, that's true, but that is because that theory is ridiculous. We've discussed this already, for 20 pages or what, so I don't see any reason to repeat all the many reasons why it is. It's not really relevant how extensively engineers are going to scrutinize the report and reproduce and duplicate the findings - tough I'm sure that will be done - because if the buildings were demolished with explosives, it wouldn't have been possible to hide it. You wouldn't have to scrutinize the findings and the evidence. Take a look at a video of a controlled demolition. Would it have been possible to construct an alternative explanation for why these buildings fell, which would have been even superficially plausible? No, it wouldn't. The criticism that has been voiced concerns the lack of visualization of the collapse sequence. The time and the resources at their disposal didn't permit them to do that, but they are now considering doing it anyway. It is of course difficult to know for sure the exact sequence of things that go on inside the towers, and it must necessarily involve some guesswork. It takes a special kind of logical short-circuit in one's mental faculties to see this as a cover-up of a controlled demolition. I seriously don't know what the problem is here. Is it just wishful thinking? Do people desperately want a smoking gun? Or is it a knee-jerk rejection of everything associated with or coming from the government, far beyond healthy skepticism, which causes people to abandon all reason and logic and common sense? The government says it, so it can't be true? Anyone who has a different opinion than "the government" must necessarily be telling the truth? Or is the idea of people flying planes into buildings and thereby causing them to collapse simply too boringly conventional and bourgeoise and unexciting?

by **Bismillah** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:40 am

"Or is the idea of people flying planes into buildings and thereby causing them to collapse simply too boringly conventional and bourgeoise and unexciting?" No plane hit WTC7. It may not excite you, but even NIST can't explain that.

by **proldic** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:50 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>There's by now a small industry on the thesis that the administration had something to do with 9-11. I've looked at some of it, and have often been asked. There's a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn't try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky. That aside, they'd have had to be quite mad to try anything like that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly, they'd all be lined up before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever. That would have happened whether the plan succeeded or not, and success was at best a long shot; it would have been extremely hard to predict what would happen.<hr></blockquote> - Noam Chomsky <blockquote>Quote:<hr>That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it.<hr></blockquote> - Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, in response to a question from the audience about US government foreknowledge of 9/11. At that time, 9/11 investigators had already presented substantial documented evidence for: prior warnings, Air Force stand-down, anomalous insider trading connected to CIA, cover-up of the domestic anthrax attacks, inconsistencies in identities & timelines of "hijackers", US connections to al Qaeda in Balkans, a Pak ISI-al Qaeda funding connection, etc etc etc. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=proldic@rigorousintuition>proldic</A> at: 11/24/05 8:53 am

Jonesing on conspiracy theories (another Prof Jones article)

orz

Re: orz

Re: say what?

LOL

Re: Jonesing on conspiracy theories (another Prof Jones arti

physics

Re: physics

Re: physics

Re: physics

Re: physics

Re: physics

Fire Science Profs comments on NIST

Re: Nonsense

The Unmentionable 47-Storey Building

Bismillah on Chomsky: Subject of the most vicious smear

Who is online