BYU on WTC collapse controversy
In a paper here, BYU physics professor Steve Jones sets forth an "explosive demolition hypothesis" (that prepositioned explosives like those set in Vegas hotels caused the WTC towers' collapse on 11 September 2001). His conclusion:
I look forward to peer-review of Jones' article. For now, with all due respect, he appears to be part of the tinfoil hat brigade.
None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.In response, BYU issued the following statement:
Statement Regarding Steve Jones's PaperJones' paper does not attempt to address three central common-sense questions it raises: Who? How? and Why? Who "carefully placed" the "prepositioned explosives"? How did they do so without being detected? And why: why bother to fly airliners into the buildings if prepositioned explosives were going to destroy them anyway?
SUMMARY: A statement has been released in connection with a paper recently posted by Dr. Steven Jones in the Department of Physics & Astronomy.
Brigham Young University has a policy of academic freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas. Through the academic process, ideas should be advanced, challenged, and debated by peer-review in credible venues. We believe in the integrity of the academic review process and that, when it is followed properly, peer-review is valuable for evaluating the validity of ideas and conclusions.
The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. 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.
I look forward to peer-review of Jones' article. For now, with all due respect, he appears to be part of the tinfoil hat brigade.
posted by Barney at 7:01 AM
3 Comments:
I'm back, now that I can post comments here again! And because that has been impossible for the last little while, I have some catching-up to do, so you may expect me to show up here rather frequently over the next couple of weeks.
With regard to this particular topic, I agree with you that this prof's ideas are a bit on the loony side, and I was frankly rather embarrassed for BYU when he made them public. (Looks like some other people were, too.) I'm not one who is inclined to buy into conspiracy theories, and I often wonder why so many Americans, in particular, do. I may actually be one of only about 10 people who believes, for example, that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the JFK assassination; but in that case, at least some of the second-gunman and other conspiracy theories were somewhat plausible and made a certain amount of sense. This one just doesn't add up at all, and even if the government wanted to demolish an important and symbolic building, couldn't they have chosen something a bit easier to work with than two 110-story towers? Come on!
skuttler, even though your post seemed aimed at Garry, I'll respond.
Physics professors live in the real world and should exercise common sense. I don't expect Jones to have all the answers, but common sense makes his hypothesis seem silly. If it's testable, great. Someone test it. But from a layman's perspective, it defies simple common sense.
No one called Jones or you the name you call those who disagree with you. It's clear you have strong feelings and that you're part of the "Bush lied, people died" crowd. But because of that you seem too willing to ignore common sense because you believe the President lied. Please specify the lie(s) the President told that fooled the majority of the members of Congress into supporting a resolution approving the use of force in Iraq. Did Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Madeline Albright, and Nancy Pelosi lie about Iraq, too, when they said Saddam's possession of WMD was an unacceptable risk?
Barney -
you write, "I don't expect Jones to have all the answers, but common sense makes his hypothesis seem silly."
Simply appealing to common sense doesn't work; I wouldn't know what it tells us.
David Ray Griffin, in "The new Pearl Harbour", explains at length that when considering all available evidence, the hypothesis that there was some form of government involvement is more likely true than untrue.
So much for common sense. Just look at all the evidence.
"Please specify the lie(s) the President told that fooled the majority of the members of Congress into supporting a resolution approving the use of force in Iraq."
He has said that Al Quaeda were the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack (lie 1);
he has said that there were links between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime (lie 2).
Furthermore he (or others in his administration) made Colin Powell present evidence that Iraq was in possession of WMD facilities, which has been shown to be a lie.
Post a Comment
<< Home