So Much For Prof Jones. Paper rejected by his own University

[inthebrain]

I wonder how the folks who endorse 9/11 conspiracy theories feel about this one?

Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006


Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

[AlwaysQuestion]

1. Are you back again?

Yadda, yadda, yadda. There is absolutely no way that all three buildings came just a tumblin' down at free fall speed and I don't give a fig what D. Allan Firmage has to say. Seems the current administration can always find someone willing to sell his soul for the right price.

Now you can cite chapter and verse from any damn source you want, in the final analysis it will be proven that these buildings were wired for implosion.

Now, will you please flee the scene. You're getting on my nerves.

[inthebrain]

2. The free fall fallacy

That ones my favorite.

Easily debunked;

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE
By
F. R. Greening

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The tragic events that took place in New York City on September 11th, 2001 have
raised a number of questions about the destruction of the buildings comprising the World
Trade Center (WTC) but especially the remarkable collapse of the landmark “Twin
Towers”. Questions range from the emotionally charged – “Who could have done such a
thing and why?” - to the more pragmatic: “Why, after appearing to survive two aircraft
impacts, did the Twin Towers crumble in a progressive pancake-type collapse of
successive floors?” In fact, the dramatic demolition like “take-down” of each tower has
prompted some conspiracy-minded observers to suggest that explosives must have been
used to initiate each collapse /1/.



A good place to start unraveling the mystery of what caused the Twin Towers to
collapse is to investigate the mechanics of the impact and collapse events. This involves
following the energy transfer processes from the initial aircraft collisions, through the
subsequent fires, to the final collapse and crushing of the steel, concrete and other
materials used in the construction of these buildings. In this report we attempt to evaluate
the energetics of the impact and collapse events of the September 11th WTC disaster. In
this way it is hoped to decide if the observed collapse events could have occurred without
the help of explosives or, indeed, without any input from other external sources of
energy



2.0 WTC COLLAPSE TIMES
The collapse times of each of the two WTC towers are very important parameters
in the estimation of the energy transfer involved in these events. In this report we define
the collapse time, tc, as the observed time interval for more than 95 % of the mass of the
WTC tower (WTC 1 or 2) to fall to “ground zero”. This, of course, requires a definition
of the start of the collapse. Because of uncertainties in the timing of the WTC collapseinitiating
and terminating events, many different values of tc have been reported;
however, the published values (I have seen) all fall in the range 8 – 18 seconds. In
addition, Newtonian mechanics dictates a minimum value for the collapse time, tc, which
is calculated, (allowing for the thickness of each floor), as follows:
tc = (2h/g) = {2(416 10)/9.81} = 9.1 seconds

The calculations included in this report are based on well-documented values for the WTC height, weight
and other building specifications as listed in Appendix 1.



Seismic data recorded at various sites in New York State on September 11th,
2001, show two significant events, the first at about 9:59 a.m. (EDT) and the second,
slightly more powerful, at about 10:28 a.m. (EDT). Traces of the seismic events may be
viewed at www.ldeo.columbia.edu, and show a lot of “ringing” decay extending over 10
or more seconds. Thus, cursory inspection of the traces suggests that the WTC collapse
events were indeed “about 10 seconds” in duration. However, since the correct
interpretation of the seismic data is critically important to the analysis of the collapse of
the two WTC towers, we will now consider the seismic data in more detail.


The first event, occurring at about 9:59, was the collapse of WTC 2, also called
the south tower, (N.B. This was not the first tower to be hit by an aircraft). The north
tower, WTC 1, collapsed at about 10:28 and was responsible for the second seismic
disturbance. The traces recorded at the Palisades station provide the best seismic data for
the events of September 11th, 2001. Because the published traces begin at 9:59:07 (WTC
2) and 10:28:30 (WTC 1), these times are frequently quoted as the actual collapse times.
This is erroneous for two reasons. First, it should be noted that the start of the major
oscillations in the seismic signature of each collapse event corresponds to the ground
impact of the main upper section of the towers. As TV coverage of the event shows, this
impact occurred about 10 seconds after the start of the collapse of each tower. Second,
the Palisades seismic data are delayed by about 17 seconds compared to the actual events
in New York City because of the travel time for the 34 km distance between the towers
and the Palisades seismic station.



The CNN TV coverage of the collapse of the North Tower (WTC 1) provides a
very useful time calibration of this event that may be compared with the Palisades
seismic data. The CNN TV images show that WTC 1 starts to collapse at 10:28:23. The
ground impact of the upper section follows about 10 seconds later at 10:28:33. This is
consistent with the Palisades data if we allow 17 seconds for travel time of the seismic
waves. Thus, if we treat the Palisades data as if it were recorded at the WTC site, the
published seismic trace would now effectively begin at 10:28:13 and the ground impact
responsible for the large oscillations of the trace would occur at 10:28:32. These values
are in good agreement with the visual result derived from the CNN TV images.



Having made these adjustments to the timelines of the 911 seismic data we are
able to conclude that the small ripples in the traces of the WTC collapse events - ripples
that precede the period of large oscillations - represent the first stage of collapse as
defined more precisely below. The seismic signal for this first stage is small, as would be
expected, since kinetic energy is being transmitted to the ground only through the steel
support structure. Furthermore, a significant fraction of this kinetic energy is being
absorbed as the energy needed to buckle and crush the structural elements of the
buildings. The major seismic signal of each collapse is generated by the ground impact of
falling debris, and constitutes what we will call a second stage of collapse. Given the
above considerations and a careful evaluation of the seismic data, it is estimated that the
first stage of collapse took 11.3  1.5 seconds for each WTC tower. We will show in the
following Section that the second stage of collapse added 1 – 2 seconds to the total
collapse times.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

3. law of momentum conservation

doubt that does anything for you because if you did understand it you prolly wouldn't of posted this

very sad that so many lack the ability to grasp such simple concepts and/or think for themselves..

[SidDithers]

35. I think I know what you mean...

but I'd really love to hear your explanation of the "law of momentum conservation"

Sid

[vincent_vega_lives]

9. "At Free Fall speed"

Ahem. they didnt. Do the math. :eyes:

"I don't give a fig what D. Allan Firmage has to say." Critical analyis if there ever was one.


"Seems the current administration can always find someone willing to sell his soul for the right price." Translation: Anyone MUCH SMARTER than I that disagrees with me must be ethically and/or morally corrupt.

[AlwaysQuestion]

14. Yeah.....

That pretty much sums it up!!

[vincent_vega_lives]

15. thats it eh?

I wuz hopin for a bit more...:spank:

[Daneel]

79. People believe what they want to believe

But investigation is the opposite of belief.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. Too bad the 81st floor of WTC2

which is the floor that failed first, didn't have steel bridge girders or trusses.

Besides if he read the NIST and FEMA reports then he would know that none of the steel was heated to anywhere near 800 to 1000 degree fahrenheit.

[LARED]

5. Perhaps you should try reading the NIST reports

before you comment. There is ample evidence provided that the fires were over 1000 deg F.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Maybe the NIST report

should have studied the buildings design a little better, because they do not account for the difference in construction on certain floors and assumed all the floors were constructed the same way.

[frylock]

17. and perhaps you should read the NIST reports a little more closely..

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=45315
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf

[hack89]

18. And NIST also stated ...

that the sample size was too small to be statistically significant.

Fire science is a well established science with lots of empirical experimentation behind it. Using established fire models and smoke plume models, it wasn't too hard to determine the potential range of temperatures at the WTC.

As one example, here is an MIT paper on the WTC fires. Note the peer reviewed references.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

[zforce]

31. NIST states "Representative sample".. then later "Come on now, you didn't believe us"

Hack states...

that the sample size was too small to be statistically significant.

Z: The fact of the matter is, it only became too small after the results had attested to steel temps of less than 250c.

But before these reuslts, the NIST position was...


http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixf.pdf

1. NIST
From the recovered steel, sufficient representative samples from each important class of steel groups are available for a full examination (i.e., chemical, metallurgical, and mechanical property analyses) to investigate why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impact of the aircraft"

NIST has 236 samples from the WTC buildings, the majority belonging to WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represent roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers. NIST believes the collection of steel from the WTC towers is sufficient for the Investigation. This assertion is drawn from the following two statements. First, recovery of material from locations in or near the impact and fire damaged regions of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was remarkably good, including four exterior panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located within these areas. Second, sufficient representative samples exist for all 14 grades of exterior panel material, 2 grades of the core column material (which represents 99 percent, by total number, of columns), and both grades for the floor truss material.

[petgoat]

47. The sample size was too small to be significant.

OK, and WHY was the sample size too small?

Who prevented the investigators from taking samples?

Is the assertion that the sample was too small based on
comparison with the universe of ALL possible steel samples
from the building, or only the relevant samples from
damaged and burned floors?

[LARED]

19. Read this then get back to me

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf

[frylock]

23. is this the model they created..

where they had to fudge the numbers in order get the floor joists to sag? Yeah -- I've read that.

[LARED]

24. You've got the wrong report

The one I gave you establishes the fires were hot enough to compromise the steel.

[zforce]

30. I don't think there is anyone arguing against

the fires reaching temps of over 1000 deg F. If anything, people are arguing against the claim that there is evidence for the STEEL exhibiting temps of over 1000 deg F.

[LARED]

57. This is what they do

The actual specimens collected from the WTC site do not show temperatures above about 250 C. The CT'er interprets this as no steel was above 250 C anywhere in the building. The reality is that the NIST is perhaps the world best institution on studying fires in office buildings. The models they use to determine temperatures for the steel are based on photographic evidence, testing, and empirical data developed over many years of careful research, and will without doubt be pretty close to the real event.

[zforce]

59. I doubt very much....

that CT'ers would argue with you that there was no steel anywhere in the building reaching temps above 250c...(ie..the motlen steel).

Though, I am sure you meant that CT'ers hold the position that the fires which had been caused by the impact of the plane were not hot enough for a long enough period to cause steel temps in the fire/impact area to reach temps above 250c, as is/was attested by the steel samples(minus the three "maybe's" above 250c) which were once held to be representative by the NIST(that is, before the results).


Now, regarding your World's Best Institution's well respected computer models of, "less severe", "base", or "more severe"....

Why not, "less than less severe", or "less than less than less severe"?

Would it at least be possible?

"NIST"

"Of course it wouldn't be possible, since obviously the steel temps must have reached weakening temps, after all we all did see a fire and then three buildings collapse".

Junk Science my friend, garbage scientifically input,then garbage scientifically outputted.

[petgoat]

25. Firmage DIDN'T read the FEMA report, but only a summary,

and it appears he never heard of NIST.

What a clown!!

[ima_sinnic]

6. the * admin thanks you for the time & effort you put into "debunking"

--technical details aside, isn't it strange how * dodged every effort for a real investigaton into the FACTS of 9/11? tell us, oh "conspiracy theorist debunker," WHAT IS HE TRYING TO COVER UP? how have he and his goons managed to profit so handsomely, monetarily as well as politically, from this tragedy?

why were all videotapes around the Pentagon seized within minutes and never released to the public? why won't they show us what they supposedly have in a hangar somewhere that is supposed to be the "plane" that hit the Pentagon?

why has Sibel Edmonds been silenced?

why did * delete 28 pages of evidence?

WHAT IS HE COVERING UP?

you are free to believe that 2 airplanes were hijacked and flown into the Twin Towers on the same day AS A COINCIDENCE--but you risk making yourself look like a total moron--I guess that doesn't bother you, oh "wise one."

[hack89]

21. Why can't everything you say be true ,,,

without there being demolition?

Could bush be covering the fact that hijackers were CIA patsies and the administrator did everything in their power to see that they were able to crash those planes into the WTC?

Everything in your post could be true yet completely irrelevant as to whether Dr Jones is right or not.

[ima_sinnic]

22. OP not addressing explosives explicitly but calling us "conspiracy theorists"

Just that mocking alone shows he/she has an axe to grind--for some reason wanting people not to question anything. If someone doesn't "believe in" MIHOP or LIHOP in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of SOME kind of involvement/awareness/facilitation/complicity by * admin, why would he or she bother denigrating those who do? what's the point? does it make him feel superior or something? I don't believe, for example, that Jesus was born of a virgin, but do I have time/motivation to troll internet boards disparaging those who do? only someone with an agenda of some sort is going to bother. If I wanted converts to "my" "religion," I might do that.

I have no idea of the technical details. yes, you're right--* admin involvement may have had nothing to do with explosives, but there seems to be an awful lot of evidence that explosives were used--who planted them?

I was just trying to make the point that OP implies that anyone who questions the absurd "official" story is a *gasp* "conspiracy theorist" (as though that's an insult or something) yet does not appear in the slightest fazed by the glaring, obvious evidence of complicity I mention in my other post. such obtuseness can't be merely "dumbness."

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Your subject line is false. One guy at the same School wrote an Ltte. Woo woo!

[Dick Diver]

10. Actually, the headline is misleading

given the evidence the OP presents. However, it is true that pretty much all of the relevant departments at BYU have rejected Jones' theories.

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department (BYU)

"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." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

edit: removed duplicate quote

[Ezlivin]

11. "The structural design of the towers was unique..."

And that explains why WTC 7 collapsed as well, even though more heavily damaged buildings (such as WTC 3 below) didn't.

The argument for "unique design" is another form of Special Pleading.

[vincent_vega_lives]

13. I think even you can see that there was

NO FIRE. There has been a partial collapse of this building due to kinetic impacts, however the structure still standing maitains its integrity. What you don't have here is a transferance of load culminating in a progressive collapse due to a combination of impact dammage and fire, found in WTC 7.

[mirandapriestly]

27. The fake scientists are back

A little extra pre election budget money?

[AZCat]

36. And your reason for labelling certain posters "fake scientists"?

Let me guess - they disagree with you? I'll be waiting for your presentation of evidence, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Nozebro]

37. Makes sense. There's even some new ones. (recent CT'er grads)

The REAL conspiracy theorists are back in droves and I wonder if their bosses would be upset to know that her/his charges are a pain in the neck, but other than that they're mostly entertaining.

[vincent_vega_lives]

82. You don't have to be a scientist to understand this stuff

Just be able to analize data, make rational concusions.

Ohh. :think:

[Ezlivin]

68. Read the Government's own report - they are mystified at WTC 3

They say it very plainly: "WTC 3 should be studied further to understand how it resisted progressive collapse."

Small fires on the top floor were ignited as a result of projectiles through the roof, most likely after the impact of the aircraft with WTC 1. At least one of these fires was located in the health club on the top floor. Some jet fuel was reportedly involved in these fires. Evacuation of the hotel guests and staff was initiated shortly after ignition of the fires. Building occupants were initially directed to the hotel lobby. Later, the building occupants were instructed to evacuate the building. It is unknown whether the fire alarm system was activated in the building. Hotel staff and fire service personnel alerted other building occupants while moving in the corridors on the guest room floors.

So much for the "NO FIRE" claim.

The response of WTC 3 to the September 11 events is complex and noteworthy. WTC 3 was subjected to two loading events. The first event involved the collapse of WTC 2, which stood immediately east of WTC 3. Due to its proximity to WTC 2, substantial amounts of debris fell directly on the roof of WTC 3. Figure 3-6 shows large portions of the prefabricated assemblies from WTC 2 falling on top of WTC 3.
Debris from WTC 2 struck the building with sufficient force to crush approximately 16 stories in the center of the building, as shown in Figure 3-7. In spite of this extensive damage, the collapse did not continue down to the foundations or extend horizontally to the edges of the structure. In fact, the two northernmost bays (approximately 60 feet) remained intact all the way to the roof. A similar, but lesser condition existed in the southern bays. Even in the center of the building, the collapse stopped at approximately the 7th floor. This arrested collapse implies that the structure was sufficiently strong and robust to absorb the energy of the falling debris and collapsed floors, but at the same time the connections between the destroyed and remaining framing were able to break apart without pulling down the rest of the structure. This complex behavior resulted in the survival of large portions of the building following the collapse of WTC 2.
The second loading event was the collapse of WTC 1. Debris from WTC 1 fell along the entire length of the hotel. Lower floors at the southwest end of WTC 3 survived although they suffered extensive damage. The remaining portions of the building after both collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 are shown in Figure 3-8.

WTC 3 was subjected to extraordinary loading from the impact and weight of debris from the two adjacent 110-story towers. It is noteworthy that the building resisted both horizontal and vertical progressive collapse when subjected to debris from WTC 2. The overloaded portions were able to break away from the rest of the structure without pulling it down, and the remaining structural system was able to remain stable and support the debris load. The structure was even capable of protecting occupants on lower floors after the collapse of WTC 1

Enlighten yourself further: http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch3.pdf

[Nozebro]

12. Maybe BYU has heard the rumors that Jones is Intel-connected.

Intelligence organizations, the FBI, and certain rich people (e.g. the late Howard Hughes)like to have Mormons working for them, and there have been rumors for some time now, that Jones has some connections with the CIA. It could be as "innocent" as receiving funds for research, but who knows? Maybe BYU just didn't want to take the chance that Jones may NOT actually have any connections with the CIA or other such organizations.

[mogster]

16. Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V

You're good at it, I'll give you that :D

[wildbilln864]

20. Why the deceitful O.P., inthebrain?

One guy does not a university make.
911 was MIHOP!

Read the complete "Rebuilding America's Defenses" at PNAC's website.
Read about "Able Danger" and Paul Thompson's timeline!

Get informed, please!

[inthebrain]

34. Find one person from BYU that's signed on to Jone's theory.

Then we can get to who's really deceiptfull.

I post facts.

You folks battle back with bullshit.

You have no facts.

It's a serious problem with you folks.

[wildbilln864]

40. Facts you say?

I call BULLSHIT!
I say you post opinions! And everyone has one. Just like everyone has an anus. And usually they stink. You have no facts!
We don't have access to the facts. You don't have access to the facts.
The evidence was carted off and destroyed. That's a fact!
But you keep supporting the gatekeepers and aiding the perps if that's what you want to do. But don't expect others to fall for it just because you do.

[inthebrain]

51. Jones is retiring

From the university becuase his peers think his work is garbage.

9/11 Conspiracy Theorist to Leave Brigham Young
Associated Press
Sunday, October 22, 2006; Page A10


PROVO, Utah, Oct. 21 -- A Brigham Young University physics professor who suggested that the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives has resigned, six weeks after the school placed him on leave.

"I am electing to retire so that I can spend more time speaking and conducting research of my choosing," Steven E. Jones, a physics professor, said in a statement released by the school.

His retirement is effective Jan. 1.

Jones recently published theories about U.S. government involvement in the events of Sept. 11, 2001, including one suggesting that explosives inside the World Trade Center -- not airplanes striking the twin towers -- brought the complex down.

BYU stripped Jones of two classes and put him on leave in early September. It also began investigating his research.

The school abandoned its review Friday after reaching a retirement agreement with Jones, BYU spokeswoman Carri P. Jenkins said.

Jenkins said the school did not pressure Jones to retire.

Jones, who in 2005 helped found a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, said he plans to continue researching and speaking about his Sept. 11 theories. That includes completing an analysis of soils and metals from the towers that led him to the conclusions in his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"

Jones began teaching at BYU, which is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in 1985.


Jones is the same jackass who claimed that Jesus visited America and claimed to have proof. That wasn't enough for the whackjobs at BYU to dismiss him. Funny that Jone's work as of late has been rejected by the whackos at BYU.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/21/AR2006102100635.html

[petgoat]

53. Because his peers think his work is garbage?

Ummm, your link doesn't support that claim.

YOUR work is garbage.

These BYU persons have joined Scholars for 9/11 Truth:

Dillon K. Inouye (FM) Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young University

Kenneth Kuttler (FM) Mathematics, Brigham Young University

Atilio Medina (SM) Information technology, Brigham Young University

[inthebrain]

54. Why didnt they just pull in the lunch lady?

Earlier I asked for one person at BYU that endorsed Jones' paper. You gave me a Psychology/ technology professor, A Mathemitician and an Information technologist. None of these folks are civil engineers, Physics experts or Demolitions experts.

Nor is there a statement that I can find where they claim to endorse Jones' work. Keep in mind, this isn't the first piece of junk science ever released by Jones. He had another paper he wrote which was supposed to have proven that Jesus walked North America.

The folks you claim "endorse" his paper are not experts in the field.

My link does support my claim.

You see what you want to see depsite what reality tells you.

[jberryhill]

55. Uhmmm.... you need to understand something about Utah

Jones is the same jackass who claimed that Jesus visited America and claimed to have proof. That wasn't enough for the whackjobs at BYU to dismiss him.

Pretty much everyone in Provo, Utah believes that claim, btw.

[planeman]

45. Jones is working for us(the OTC's) in a subtle way.

He intentionally set up a false premise of thermite being used to destroy the WTC so that the conspiracy theorists would flock to it in their droves.Once that happened he would allow his thermite theory to be ridiculed by his fellow peers.thereby rididculing the entire truth movement.And it seems to have worked a treat.Hats of to Mr Jones.

[petgoat]

48. Find one person? Here's three members of st911:

Dillon K. Inouye (FM)-- Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young University

Kenneth Kuttler (FM)-- Mathematics, Brigham Young University

Atilio Medina (SM)-- Information technology, Brigham Young University

[Chomp]

26. Sorry,

a structural engineer with 57 years continuous experince is just not good enough for me.

I require my structual engineers to have at least 60 continuous years experience before I listen to a word they say.

Nice try Professor Firmage. Get back to us in 3 years.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. What is it they say? Those that can't do, teach. or something like that? n/t

[Chomp]

41. Your lack of humility is revolting,

and totally, totally unsurprising.

And, erm, wasn't Jones the Professor's colleague? Wouldn't that put the 2 men in the same boat? LMFAO. Your "argument" is as consistent as a blancmange.

Your attempt to exalt ignorance over knowledge has only succeeded in revealing you to be a charlatan.

What a delicious irony.

[John Q. Citizen]

56. Oh my. Don't we take ourselves extremely seriously? Take a powder.

I could care less if you believe 9/11 was an inside job or not.

I can't understand why you care so much if I do believe 9/11 was an inside job. Is it something about your personality?

[AZCat]

78. If you don't care what other people believe about...

the possibility of September 11th being an inside job, then why did you post a poll asking that very question?

[petgoat]

49. Firmage didn't read the FEMA report, never heard of the NIST

report. He's a clown.

[dailykoff]

28. Note that he fails to mention the core and he doesn't say Jones is wrong.

He says he finds Jones' thesis "unreliable." What does that mean? Nothing, because he provides not a syllable of support.

He also says he finds Jones' presentations "disturbing." Well, so do I.

Nice hit piece on a younger colleague's work, but scientifically meaningless.

[LARED]

33. You are good. Good at spinning that is

Hit piece? Please!

Not mentioning the core? So what? Why should he do that?

Doesn't say Jones is wrong?

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

You might be right. He is not really saying Jones is wrong. I would interpret it as saying Jones is an idiot, or at least willfully ignorant and negligent.

[Nozebro]

38. I would interpret it as meaning Jones is a CT'er like yourself.

nt

[dailykoff]

39. The spin is in the letter

which I imagine this guy wrote under pressure from some administrator feeling heat from Orin Hatch or the DHS. So he mischaracterizes the tower construction ("The resulting structure was similar to a tube") and uses adjectives to insinuate that Jones is wrong without actually saying or demonstrating why.

Well Jones isn't wrong as I'm sure you know by now.

[LARED]

58. You obviously have an excellent imagination (n/t)

[dailykoff]

60. Thanks, but yours is much more active.

That's assuming you still believe your talking points -- which I'm having trouble imagining.

:)

[Nozebro]

62. For Spin sters, "talking points" is a PR campaign strategy, not personal

beliefs. It would be interesting to know how many of the CT'ers here actually agree with us that it's bordering on crazy to say "9/11 was a conspiracy between OBL & 19 young M.E. men". I'd bet they ALL know better, but we all have promises to keep. "And miles to go before we sleep".

[inthebrain]

52. LMFAO!!!!!

[leftofthedial]

32. BFD

[leftofthedial]

42. BREAKING NEWS!!

Galileo condemned by the Catholic Church.

Sun revolves around the Earth after all.

[FourScore]

43. Wow! I'm convinced!!!

Thanks so much for turning me around...You've really shown me the light!

There's no university politics in this letter to be found!

How can I thank you for leading me from the abyss? With one measly, little letter, you have proven us all wrong.

Yep. Able Danger, Saeed Sheik, the ISI, Lt. Gen. Mohammed Khan,the numerous military excercises that day mimicking 9/11, the testimony from the rescue workers and William Rodriguez of secondary devices exploding around them, Building 7's inexplicable collapse, the military stand-down, Bush and his Pet Goat, top military brass and Mayor Willie Brown being told to cancel flights on that day, put options...oh! just about everything regarding this whole sordid story has now come crashing down (no pun intended) around me. It's over. One Professor Emeritus at the same school that just forced Professor Jones out of his job wrote a letter.

Wow. Thank you for showing me the light.
:sarcasm:

[rman]

44. so someone regurgitates the OCT

And how is this supposed to be of interest?

[AZCat]

46. It depends on you.

The world being as it is, we all have to (at some point) accept certain sources as authorities, because we as individuals are not capable of examining all evidence first-hand either because of the limitations of our personal resources (we may not be able to test properly ourselves the properties of steel when exposed to fire) or because the evidence was only available to certain people (direct witnesses to an event, for example). Which sources are accepted is, of course, a personal decision. Some people may grant the letter-write in the OP such status, while others may not. Just because you do not decide to view the source as valid doesn't lessen the sources possible validity for other individuals, although if you have reasons for not accepting the source it would seem fair to bring those to the attention of others.

[petgoat]

50. Firmage Went off Half-Cocked

after having read no more than a summary of the FEMA report.

In this way he more represents Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann
than a sober researcher like Dr. Jones.

[rman]

61. "accept certain sources as authorities"

Kinda like "trust them, we're to stupid"
No thanks. Especially if no evidence is supplied.

[AZCat]

76. Not at all.

Perhaps you could read my post again and see if your interpretation might be improved?

[freedom fighter jh]

63. Could this be real?

Do you have a link or something to show that this is not the BS that it looks like?

Letter to the editor of what?

If D. Allan Firmage had read the FEMA/ASCE report, as he said he did, he would know (as DailyKoff has pointed out above) that the supporting steel structure did NOT consist of "closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides." In fact most of the gravity load was borne by internal core columns. Further, Jones debunks the idea that the steel was heated enough to much strength. And even if it was, no one who supports the OCT has explained how the towers collapsed so fast that they put up no resistance -- for that to happen the steel would have had to lose ALL its strength.

I do agree that before supporting a conspiracy theory one should make sure it holds up. Take a good look at the official story. It's got about as much structural integrity as a house of cards.

[LARED]

64. In case you're not aware the "supporting" steel structure

supports far more than the gravity load. Perhaps a guy with 57 years of experience knows that intuitively, and did not realize he needs to spell it out in detail for the CT google engineers.

[Nozebro]

65. What do you call conspiracy theorists that claim to believe OBL did it?

"CT google engineers."

[freedom fighter jh]

66. "Support: v, trans: to hold up or serve as a foundation . . .

. . . or prop for." That's definition 4b from Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary.

Besides knowing how to use a dictionary, I've got a master's degree in engineering and a license. I'll lay odds that makes you a hell of a lot more of a google engineer than I am.

The towers' peripheral columns protected against wind load. That's an important factor for a cantilever that is 1360 feet long and located in a windy place. But it was not an important factor in the collapse. This guy's statement indicates that he didn't know what held the buildings up. Either he's lying about having read those reports or someone made him up altogether. Words like "57 years of experience" are cheap. I don't believe it.

[LARED]

70. Cool, you're an engineer. What kind?

I'm a mechanical engineer. And I was able to figure out the the guys was speaking loosely and did not intent anyone to believe the entire structure was supported by the perimeter columns. The perimeter column design was unique.

I'm curious what percentage of dead load do you think the perimeter columns supported?

[Nozebro]

72. You're an engineer, but HE has a Masters in engineering. What about you?

nt

[LARED]

73. Actually I'm about 1/2 way through my Masters

I went back a few years ago when my company offered to pay.

Sinces we're on the subject, What about you. What type of engineer are you?

[dailykoff]

74. You should stick to what you know, and it ain't structures.

Ditto your OCT pals, at least the ones who post here.

[LARED]

75. Nice too see you living out your advice

You stick to spin. Something you know well.

[AZCat]

77. By "license" do you mean P.E.?

I'm curious - what discipline?

[petgoat]

67. According to Kevin Ryan the perimeter columns were rated

for 20X their dead load, which was approximately equal to the
live load.

Also according to Ryan the floor sag tests were conducted with floors
subjected to twice the normal live load in order to achieve the desired
results.

Firmage didn't even read the FEMA report before shooting his mouth off,
and it appears that he never heard of the NIST report. The tallest building
in Utah is 28 stories. But according to you this clown needn't explain
the process by which he arrives at his exalted intuitions.

Thanks for making clear to us your epistemology, LARED!

[LARED]

69. Kevin Ryan does not know what he is talking about

He is way out of his league commenting of structural engineering. I guess getting fired for the same sort of nonsense at UL failed to teach him anything.

He does not even know what rated dead load and live load means

[petgoat]

71. "He does not even know what rated dead load and live load means"

And your evidence for this is what?

Dead load and live load are hardly complex concepts. Nor are tension, compression,
and shear.

But your Dr. Firmage with his exalted intuitions needn't explain to us how he
arrives at his cosmic insight, and it doesn't bother you one bit that he hasn't
even read the FEMA report and never heard of the NIST report.

[truth01]

80. D. Allan Firmage does not mention WTC building 7...

D. Allan Firmage does not mention WTC building 7.

Why? Does he know that it was blown up that day?

Steven Jones does and has proved it.

A 47-story steel framed skyscraper collapses into tidy pile of rubble in 6.5 seconds:
http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/b7.html

There is only one explanation that does not violate the laws of physics.

Controlled demolition.

[savemefromdumbya]

81. The WTC N & S and 37 were blown