Dr. Jones redux
Dr. Steven E. Jones, a BYU physics professor, has postulated that prepositioned explosives, not commercial airliners, brought down the Twin Towers. (See Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC).
Now he's calling for a special federal prosecutor to investigate (Sept. 11 theorizing professor speaks out).
My take (still):
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (The (now-updated) paper that started it all)
Dr. Jones' CV.
Questions remain from 9/11 report, professor says
Scholars for 9/11 Truth website
No conclusion yet on 9/11 (Dr. Jones' letter to the editor)
BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11
Wikipedia article on Steven E. Jones
Now he's calling for a special federal prosecutor to investigate (Sept. 11 theorizing professor speaks out).
My take (still):
Jones' 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?Some more Jones links:
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (The (now-updated) paper that started it all)
Dr. Jones' CV.
Questions remain from 9/11 report, professor says
Scholars for 9/11 Truth website
No conclusion yet on 9/11 (Dr. Jones' letter to the editor)
BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11
Wikipedia article on Steven E. Jones
posted by Barney at 6:45 AM
3 Comments:
Not only does Prof. Jones and his "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" address your crucial questions, they have not been forthcoming with any data, calculations, assumptions, or methodology to support their claims and assertions.
Despite being asked to for months.
One needs to maintain some healthy skepticism of a Physics professor who is unwilling to reveal his "physics", something that is required for credible, peer-reviewed science. His own university, BYU, and his own physics department made this quite clear last year in their public statement:
Statement Regarding Steve Jones's Paper
"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."
Prof Jones et al are up against science and data, fully transparent, that demonstrate that the WTC towers 1 & 2, could have collapsed without the need to introduce "controlled demolition" into the equation. So far, Jones et al have been unwilling to address this particulary the papers of Canadian scientist, Dr. Frank Greening, available here:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/NISTREPORT.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf
Some of us are pressuring Jones to actually deal with the science and physics of the collapses. Why he hasn't and won't should certainly raise eyebrows.
"Jones' 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?"
Jones does not need to discuss these things when setting out the physical evidence for controlled demolition.
However, I can give you some tentative answers:
Who: the department of defense or a subcontractor.
How: there were power cuts (documented), and bomb sniffer dogs had been retracted (documented).
Why: because you need the airliner impacts as a cover. Once you start researching controlled demolition, it will soon be obvious that Al-Quaeda could not pull off such an operation.
Further: Sky King writes:
"Prof Jones et al are up against science and data, fully transparent, that demonstrate that the WTC towers 1 & 2, could have collapsed without the need to introduce "controlled demolition" into the equation."
They do not need to. The above may be true and yet the evidence may support controlled demolition more strongly. It is up to supporters of the official story to refute that claim.
"So far, Jones et al have been unwilling to address this particulary the papers of Canadian scientist, Dr. Frank Greening".
As I write, this is not entirely true; see http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc
as an answer to the claims in http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
Moreover, Sky King writes that "His own university, BYU, and his own physics department made this quite clear last year in their public statement"
BUT omits to say that the statement was retracted, and has been on that website for not more than a few days.
See http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724
Sky King repeats, as a mantra, that "they have not been forthcoming with any data, calculations, assumptions, or methodology to support their claims and assertions."
Everyone is invited to read prof. Jones' paper to check this claim.
Note: I am member of Scholars for 9/11 truth.
Dr. Jones' theory fails another common-sense test because it doesn't account for flight 93 and the attack on the Pentagon. There were four airliners involved that day. Why?
Was the Pentagon attack really a U.S. government missile or a remote-controlled bomb-plane or (as Prof. Jones might have it) prepositioned explosives?
If the conspiracy was "in control" all day on 9/11, how do you fit flight 93 into the theory?
Give us some scholarly truth.
Post a Comment
<< Home