BYU Physics Prof. - WTC Demolished?
- Thread starter redhawk41
- Start date
- Status
Superhornet
New member
And the professors theory is leading to.............??
Jericho9mm
New member
Typical "publish or persish" type of bull crap that most universities now-a-days are putting out. It is the same phenomenon that causes professors to claim George Washington was gay and that it is possible to turn lead to gold.
shootinstudent
New member
What a dumb article.
He relies on internet videos and sounds...did he go investigate any of the sites? No. Did he inspect any of the materials or building plans first hand? No.
He's using short media accounts and videos to make a conclusion about the construction and destruction of an enormously complex structure. I'm not in the field, but seriously....I don't think it takes a genius to see how deeply flawed it is when a scientist who knows better is making all kinds of ridiculous assertions based on the New York Times!
And of course, is this paper going to be published in a Scientific Journal? No...."Journal of Political Economy" says it all. If it were worth ten minutes of a real engineer's time, it wouldn't be off in the Marxist journals.
He relies on internet videos and sounds...did he go investigate any of the sites? No. Did he inspect any of the materials or building plans first hand? No.
He's using short media accounts and videos to make a conclusion about the construction and destruction of an enormously complex structure. I'm not in the field, but seriously....I don't think it takes a genius to see how deeply flawed it is when a scientist who knows better is making all kinds of ridiculous assertions based on the New York Times!
And of course, is this paper going to be published in a Scientific Journal? No...."Journal of Political Economy" says it all. If it were worth ten minutes of a real engineer's time, it wouldn't be off in the Marxist journals.
Ultima-Ratio
Moderator
Troubling-
Some of us were watching the live broadcast on 911 and saw in real time the rapid collapse of building 7 and also recall the lady reporter commenting on a ground shaking explosion just before the buliding came down.
It takes more than a little courage for the BYU professor to speak the truth IMO!
Some of us were watching the live broadcast on 911 and saw in real time the rapid collapse of building 7 and also recall the lady reporter commenting on a ground shaking explosion just before the buliding came down.
It takes more than a little courage for the BYU professor to speak the truth IMO!
Show of paws here: how many people who believe that the World Trade Center was demolished by the Evil Government using explosives has ever done a walk-through tour of a building scheduled for demolition?
I got to see the inside of a building that was scheduled to be dropped on itself. Bear in mind that this building was considerably smaller and lower than the World Trade Center or Building #7.
The amount of concrete removed from pillars and walls was bloody astounding. Holes had been drilled every-fricken-where, and explosives rammed therein, inches-wide cuts had been made into floors and walls, and what seemed like miles of det cord snaked in and out of rooms, down halls and along walls; fuses, primers, blasting caps and detonators, oh my.
Like I said, this was for a much smaller building than the WTC.
Now, I suppose I can believe that of the thousands of people in and out of the WTC before the planes hit, not one of them noticed folks drilling hundreds (thousands?) of inch-wide holes in the support columns and ramming gelignite into them. Maybe gaping chunks of concrete knocked out of pillars didn't register to the thousands of people in and out of the WTC, and the inches-wide slices cut in the floors just kind slipped notice...
...but I still think that someone, anyone would have noticed (and commented on) a bundle of det-cord as big around as your thigh going down the middle of the halls and staircases.
LawDog
I got to see the inside of a building that was scheduled to be dropped on itself. Bear in mind that this building was considerably smaller and lower than the World Trade Center or Building #7.
The amount of concrete removed from pillars and walls was bloody astounding. Holes had been drilled every-fricken-where, and explosives rammed therein, inches-wide cuts had been made into floors and walls, and what seemed like miles of det cord snaked in and out of rooms, down halls and along walls; fuses, primers, blasting caps and detonators, oh my.
Like I said, this was for a much smaller building than the WTC.
Now, I suppose I can believe that of the thousands of people in and out of the WTC before the planes hit, not one of them noticed folks drilling hundreds (thousands?) of inch-wide holes in the support columns and ramming gelignite into them. Maybe gaping chunks of concrete knocked out of pillars didn't register to the thousands of people in and out of the WTC, and the inches-wide slices cut in the floors just kind slipped notice...
...but I still think that someone, anyone would have noticed (and commented on) a bundle of det-cord as big around as your thigh going down the middle of the halls and staircases.
LawDog
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I am sure that his department is delighted with him as Harvard was when one of their psychiatry department decided that alien abductions were real.
Conspiracies that brought down the WTC which were not the real conspiracy come from not leaving your tin foil hat on.
In fact, the MIT has studied tin foil hats.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
There you go.
Conspiracies that brought down the WTC which were not the real conspiracy come from not leaving your tin foil hat on.
In fact, the MIT has studied tin foil hats.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
There you go.
Ultima-Ratio
Moderator
??Lawdog??
I may well be daft but doesn't your argument tend to support the BYU Prof?
You mention the considerable preperation to down a large building and yet the govt says that building #7 was brought down by ummmmm some spilled keosene/jet fuel???
I'm someone somewhere has a copy of that dark days TV newscast, obtw I have some experience with kerosene fires having spent four years in AF crash rescue.
I may well be daft but doesn't your argument tend to support the BYU Prof?
You mention the considerable preperation to down a large building and yet the govt says that building #7 was brought down by ummmmm some spilled keosene/jet fuel???
I'm someone somewhere has a copy of that dark days TV newscast, obtw I have some experience with kerosene fires having spent four years in AF crash rescue.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
See if those don't answer any questions the original article brings up.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
See if those don't answer any questions the original article brings up.
Maybe we should just come straight forward and ask you, Redhawk: DO YOU BELIEVE that there was anything more to the destruction of the World Trade Center than the airplanes that were flown into it?
DO YOU BELIEVE that the buildings were "demolished"? What about the other buildings nearby that came down, too? Were they also wired up?
Or are you just offering the article (which I have admittedly not read -- just gleaned from what people have replied with) as food for thought, or an oddity and curiousity?
-blackmind
DO YOU BELIEVE that the buildings were "demolished"? What about the other buildings nearby that came down, too? Were they also wired up?
Or are you just offering the article (which I have admittedly not read -- just gleaned from what people have replied with) as food for thought, or an oddity and curiousity?
-blackmind
blackmind, I am glad you asked.
I for one would of course like to believe the government (the implications of the alternative are difficult to stomach), but they have done little to convince me. Professor Jones (and others) on the other hand offer some compelling arguments and evidence.
I posted it for the sake of discussion, unfortunately many are either unwilling or unable to engage in any kind of logical or educated discussion when it comes to this topic and instead resort to conspiracies and tinfoil hats.
Please read the article and discuss, if you like!
I for one would of course like to believe the government (the implications of the alternative are difficult to stomach), but they have done little to convince me. Professor Jones (and others) on the other hand offer some compelling arguments and evidence.
I posted it for the sake of discussion, unfortunately many are either unwilling or unable to engage in any kind of logical or educated discussion when it comes to this topic and instead resort to conspiracies and tinfoil hats.
Please read the article and discuss, if you like!
He may cite those papers, but he only includes a tiny bit of information from them. Dr. Eagar's paper does explain the collapse of the towers.
The idea that the buildings were demolished by explosives requires you to leave your common sense at the door. As LawDog mentioned, you would think someone would have noticed enough explosives to bring down the towers.
And someone had to put the explosives there. One thing Mr. Jones's paper doesn't do is present one shred of evidence that demolition charges were placed in the building. Al Quaeda never made any claim like that. If the US Government did it, do you seriously believe it would be possible to keep everyone involved in the conspiracy silent? Mr. Jones's theory requires that no one involved in planting the charges ever said a word of it to anyone.
Mr. Jones's paper is conspiracy theory drivel. I certainly hope BYU hasn't been stupid enough to grant him tenure.
The idea that the buildings were demolished by explosives requires you to leave your common sense at the door. As LawDog mentioned, you would think someone would have noticed enough explosives to bring down the towers.
And someone had to put the explosives there. One thing Mr. Jones's paper doesn't do is present one shred of evidence that demolition charges were placed in the building. Al Quaeda never made any claim like that. If the US Government did it, do you seriously believe it would be possible to keep everyone involved in the conspiracy silent? Mr. Jones's theory requires that no one involved in planting the charges ever said a word of it to anyone.
Mr. Jones's paper is conspiracy theory drivel. I certainly hope BYU hasn't been stupid enough to grant him tenure.
Last edited:
Dr. Eagar fails to even mention molten metal in the rubble that persisted for weeks after the building's collapse, and his entire premise is that the steel did not melt.
I agree that wiring the buildings for demolition seems difficult, noone has been able to sufficiently explain much yet.
The investigation seems far from conclusive to me.
Actually that seems to be the entire premise of the paper, evidence that demolition charges were placed in the building.
I agree that wiring the buildings for demolition seems difficult, noone has been able to sufficiently explain much yet.
The investigation seems far from conclusive to me.
- Status