9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

So your long winded answer is ‘it is too early’. Ok.

I will rephrase. Why doesn’t he give the samples to a scientist who actually has a good reputation? Why not someone in a more relevant field such as structural engineering or has experience with the chemistry of building materials?

No in relation to my specific question on the nanothermite samples it only brings up that NIST didn’t test for thermite.

If we are to believe Ryan Mackay, who spoke to the editor in chief, the peer review process was non existent.

Point out where I said that.

So who is backing away? You said “and most of the official theories have never been peer reviewed or published”. You could not be more wrong. What makes this even funnier is that you ranted on about double standards and make accusations of backing away.

That they weren’t written by debunkers is irrelevant. They were written by those most qualified to do so. Unlike Jones’ work.

No. Read my post again. I said “Why hasn't he submitted the results to all the relevant peer reviewed journals? “
I was specifically talking about his nanothermite samples.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2052425&postcount=1448

You mean like you did when you said this “, most if not all of these papers are simple theoretical analysis and seem not based on empirical data.” Having been proven wrong regarding peer reviewed journals, you then turn on them. Again somewhat hypocritical.

You are trying very hard to be clever but you keep setting yourself up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Shaman, there are already 512 architects and engineers who are questioning the official story. But perhaps you might appreciate the following account from one of those 512:
********************************************
Clayton J. Simmons, Associate Engineer

• Personal 9/11 Statement:
My initial exposure to the case for controlled demolition was as a result of a coworker, Ron Brookman, giving me a copy of one of Dr. Jones' papers. Knowing that I had attended BYU, Ron asked me if I had heard of him. I informed him that I had a physics class from him and vouched for his integrity as a scholar and person. Then I read the article.

I was not taken easily by the hypotheses at first, and have to admit that, while the science was well-founded, my conscience did not want to let me accept this alternative theory and its startling consequences. I found myself challenging the points made, especially the symmetrical fall theory, and tried mentally to reason my way out of what I was slowly becoming convinced of. In the end, the science -- primarily, the near-freefall speed at which the buildings came down and the evidence of incendiaries in the rubble -- the testimonies, the pictures and video footage, and the structural drawings, which show a central core around which, even if the floors did progressively collapse due to weakening of the steel by heat, would have been left intact -- all these things convinced me that we did not have the full story as provided by NIST, FEMA, ASCE, and the WTC buildings' own structural engineer, Leslie Robertson.

Getting to the bottom of what happened on 9/11 requires another serious look at the evidence, much of which has already been destroyed. Our representatives in Congress need to stand up and speak for us, not bow to the powers that, while they do much good, also have a tendency to threaten, incite fear in, and weaken us.

I saw a bumper sticker that reads "We must speak up, even if our voices shake." Such is the case here. Money, perceived civil order, and temporary stability are not worth rejecting truth - ever. In the end, the hard truth must be accepted, whatever it may be. We must suffer the consequences of our shameful mistakes and then start to heal the wounds.

I am concerned with my profession's involvement in this apparent cover up and the media's refusal to address important questions for the reasons stated above. Nothing will happen and this will all evolve into another "conspiracy theory," if it has not already, if we don't speak up resolutely now.

Finally, I feel deeply for those whose loved ones were lost on 9/11 and indirectly through our questionable involvement in international affairs. I realize that my support of additional inquiries into what happened may seem like stirring the pot for people who simply want closure and to move on. I love my country and the unprecedented freedoms it provides. In order to preserve these freedoms, however, I feel that we must pursue the truth and responsibly deal with it, not close our eyes to it because of how painful it is.
********************************************

http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=997135

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From what I remember, even Ryan Mackey didn't say that. Can you quote what Mackey says specifically and provide a link to said quote?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You'd think with such important issues, journals would be lining up to peer review his material. Instead, you seem to think that it's Steven Jones who should be chasing them down. You'd think the government would be interested in what Steven Jones has to say. Instead, it doesn't even want to talk to him. You'd think more people would be concerned of why Steven Jones was put on paid leave and Kevin Ryan was fired. But alternate 9/11 theories barely make a ripple in the mainstream media.

Instead of saying how much -more- time Steven Jones should put into this, I think you might consider that the sacrifice he's already made to voice the truth is more then anyone should be asked to make and that the people who should be doing more is the government, who instead seems far more interested in ensuring that the military industrial complex is running smoothly and oil companies get sweet deals in Iraq.

One thing, though; the center can't hold. Many Iraq citizens are tired of Bush's imperialism and it's really beginning to show:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7677551.stm

 

He is basing his opinion on the evidence presented on the website. He has therefore been ill-informed.

Nonsense like squibs, symmetrical collapse, chemical signature of thermate, no evidence of fire being hot enough to soften steel, no high rise building has ever collapsed blah blah all might be impressive if you hadn’t done the research to see these claims for what they are.

But do you know who has done some research behind 911? The authors of the many peer reviewed documents I posted on the previous page. Not only have they researched it but they have written papers published in peer reviewed engineering journals. If you are so impressed by credentials what is your response to these?

 

From my post http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2053963&postcount=1463

"The author has confirmed through personal contact with the publisher and the editor-in-chief that this paper, in fact, was not properly peer-reviewed. To be more specific, the publisher and not the editorial board handled reviews, and the editor-in-chief was unable to acquire a list of the reviewers from the publisher afterwards. "

 

Same issue, kids: who collected it? Why? From where? With what documentation?

All. Very. Convenient.

 

"I hope this story gets across the struggles we face in publishing articles in mainstream technical journals. It is one of many I could have told. I have been a co-author on other published papers with Dr. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. After every single one of those is published, someone like Ryan Mackey writes to the editor of the journal criticizing their publication standards. He never addresses the substance of our papers, but instead tries to make the editors regret publishing our papers, basically because he says their journal will be seen as not credible in the scientific community. We are then forced to correspond further with the journal editors, with sometimes humorous exchanges that I won’t share without my co-authors’ consent. It usually ends with the editors recommending that Mackey submit his own response paper for publication (as I did for the Bazant/Verdure Paper) but he never does. It’s a constant battle we face.

I also hope other scientists and engineers out there join the fight, follow our lead, and try to publish papers in mainstream technical journals on this subject. Take my story to heart and don’t let it happen to you. Insist that you be treated fairly from the outset.

James Gourley"

 

He writes the papers and submits them for publishing. That’s the way it works.

Reputable engineering journals probably wouldn’t chase someone who has a history of writing flawed papers based on poor science. Even if, for the sake of argument, he did have some very important samples or he had refined his theories his history would work against him.

It is well known why he was put on paid leave. He was damaging the reputation of his university with his half baked theories outside his field of expertise.

 

is explained in the video clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjAviEG20dg&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&e

what documentation would you expect given the circumstances? you have their word, its a simple matter to get sworn testimony.

can you elaborate?

 

I'd argue that you are ill informed, but it's not going to get us anywhere...

Shaman, are you saying you have done this 'special' research? If so, by all means illuminate us with your superior knowledge.

How about you quote a bit of their material as I virtually always do?

 

Can you provide some evidence of that? i think there were other senior members of BYU that backed him and they were not put on paid leave or retired or fired.

 

From wiki
"
Jones' paper has been the center of controversy both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.[19] Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty;[20] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[21]
Some of Jones' colleagues have defended his work on 9/11 to varying degrees,[22] and "

Why would they be fired? Jones was the one damaging the reputation of the university with his theories and dodgy methods.

There were some that backed him and some that opposed.

 

That doesn't invalidate Mackey's claim.

 

I didn't actually read Richard Gage's statement.

His comparing the WTC to a cardboard box was enough for him to be laughed out of the room and forever put on my "nutjob" list.

There were zero signs of thermite before, during and after the collapse. Each part of the buildings were removed one by one. Steel was inspected and only fire damage was witnessed. No evidence of explosives or thermite damage.

How are you supposed to look for thermite if there were no signs of it there? It's like looking for an invisible unicorn.

On top of that, NIST comments on the feasibility issues:

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

I don't trust the Bush administration as far as I can throw it... but that doesn't mean I'm ready to believe in bullshit like 9/11 conspiracy theories unless they have legitimate evidence.

The truth movement takes things too far and ultimately stretches reality so far that it is to their own detriment if they want to be taken seriously.

No, I don't think that has anything to do with the truth movement. The American people, the families and even senators wanted investigations done to see how the attacks could have been prevented. It was not due to serious concerns that the Bush administration demolished 267 floors of active office space.

You sound like a fundamentalist christian awaiting the apocalypse and second coming of christ...

The brighest stars? Ouch. You just shot the truth movement in the foot there.

Steven Jones is a man who lies. Remember the firefighters hovering their faces about "molten steel"? Were they bionic firefighters or something? Or was Steven Jones just being a liar?

Yawn. This is starting to sound like a bad remake of the three muskateers.

Incompetent as in not following the scientific method. Steven Jones saw a picture of an angled cut beam at ground zero and instead of going with the rational explanation of it being done in the clean up operation... he jumps to the farfetched notion of thermite.

Instead of going with the rational explanation of sulpher being used throughout the WTC, he claims it is thermite.

If you don't see this as lying and worthy of being fired, then that must mean you are just another dishonest conspiracy theorist.

Disrespectful to 99.9% of the scientific community who are not lying and not covering anything up.

I've heard your "inconvenient truths", and the only thing they are convenient for is a laugh.

Impossible to do for the entire scientific community. Science blindly follows evidence and no bias is involved. Science wants to be proven wrong. Science would go with creationism if there was evidence of creationism. Science would go with WTC demolition if there was a WTC demolition.

You obviously have no understanding of science if you think it will ignore this 'obvious' evidence of yours.

 

When you are mentioning squibs, no evidence that the fire was warm enough to soften steel, ect ect as evidence for the controlled demolition then no you haven’t done enough research.

No special research is needed just the facts, which is something the conspiracy sites like ae911 do not present.

I’m tempted right now to say that quoting other people is pretty much all you do. .. But I won’t.
Here is the list. It is from jref. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3789983&postcount=317

I’m not going to randomly post excerpts. I’m not keeping up with the posts as it is.

 

Yep.. or UFO disclosure..

 

He's written papers and published them already in peer reviewed journals. The fact that they're not the mainstream journals may speak more for how the mainstream works (politically correct) then anything else. Perhaps he knows that it's too early to publish something that goes so radically against the mainstream views and this is why he hasn't bothered to submit them to papers such as nature. It took 7 years before he was published in Nature for his view that challenged an eminent physicist regarding muon catalyzed fusion, but while he was challenging an eminent physicist, he was -not- dealing with something nearly as sensitive as 9/11 in that case.

He is known for being fairly meticulous in his research. The fact that he has made a few small mistakes has been balooned out of proportion by his detractors, who have made tons of mistakes, but no one seems to care about that. In any case, I'm glad that you seem atleast willing to consider that his samples may be important.

It seems clear to me that what happened is that his university was receiving heavy duty pressure to get rid of him. Take a look at one of the emails that was sent to Steven Jones and (aparently) to BYU staff:
*******************************************
"In contrast to studying things that could cause harm, the whole focus could be changed to something that is assured to prevent harm… Maybe a low velocity rocket fired from a helicopter could disperse fire retardants on a floor that can't be reached otherwise. Even if explosives are planted, this makes it much more difficult to cause the collapse of the building. If this interests you, I would be happy to contact Tom Hunter and the Head of Homeland Security to see if funding for BYU could be found to research options for this purpose.

Again, I am sorry for the difficulty of this interaction."

[end of Dec., 2005]: "Steven: I have recently given some thought to how I can help you preserve your good name at BYU. My intent is to show that I have as much concern for your well being as I have in preserving the safety and security of others.

It is better to demonstrate that structural collapse can be prevented than to show how or why structures may be collapsed. Toward this goal, I have recently had some ideas that may be inexpensive, passive, light weight and effective against attack by both fire and explosives. [A rather detailed outline for a suggested grant proposal follows, snip…]



"The concept is patentable, could be easily applied during construction (beneath facia), could be required by building codes, and has a potentially large market. Naturally, research is required to define the required thicknesses, attachment in a way that preserves existing fire protection, and attachment in a way that is difficult to remove without obvious alterations. It could even be added as a decorative feature in existing buildings.


Perhaps you may come up be different or better ideas, but it suggests a course of action that protects others, rather than put them at risk. It could bring substantial resources to BYU, and could involve a cooperative effort between the structural design group and physics department. This would give you the opportunity to address your explosive ideas without having to capitulate, while improving the resistance of the structure to collapse by firea" [Is this some sort of bribe? The reader can judge for her/himself the statements and tactics used by this man with "contacts." Note that his comments and efforts to thwart publication of the Jones paper did not succeed, but may have influenced the statement by the BYU Fulton College of Engineering which follows.]...
*******************************************
Some more intrigue follows, and you can see a fair amount of it here:
http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4

Shortly after it, he was put on paid leave. Steven Jones didn't take the bait, but apparently some company that tests steel and who was previously saying that the government's numbers didn't add up did (I think it was a UK company); I had vaguely thought that that might have been the case about that company but after reading the above it makes even more sense now.

 

All Mackey's saying is that he couldn't get the list of reviewers. I've already argued that the reason for this is because the reviewers really aren't interested in being put under the type of scrutiny that Jones has been and are probably not keen on being put on 'paid leave', fired, etc.

 

As I've already mentioned, there may have been some sweet grants in the works if they could just get rid of that pesky Jones Check out this post of mine: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2057127&postcount=1558

It's true that after the 'just do as I say and sweet grants will come' email, the BYU Fulton College of Engineering and Technology posted the following:
*******************************
"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."
*******************************

But what many don't know is that it was soonafter shot down by another professor, who said:
************************************
[Comments by Prof. Richard McGinn]: "Notice the form it takes. It undermines Jones' hypotheses with a hand-wave about academic procedure. No mention of the substance of Jones' work.

"Another problem of the statement: The Physics Department at BYU, which ran its own version of the offending statement on its web site last [autumn], was persuaded to take it down following a letter-writing campaign. Yet the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology continues to run the statement, including the surprising contention that "Professor Jones' own department" remains unconvinced. Well, is this true or not? Why did the Physics Department remove the offending statement from its own site? Did they have a change of heart, or did our letters merely induce the chair to stop harassing a faculty member, from a sudden burst of collegiality?
*******************************************

He goes on and I think it's the type of reading that all you official story believers should read in depth..

http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4