Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says

Fixed

This is definitely true.

 

No I did not.

I posted what I remembered when I first read his paper. I googled it and read responses that weren't rebuttals.

It was weeks later that I read rebuttals. I was posting based upon what I remembered when I first read his paper.

I posted an article from Salt Lake City, the desert news; they had several articles concerning the Jones issue. You acted like I lied about there being any papers written, other theories, I stated that other engineers disagree with the official position. I wasn't trying to deceive you, we both know that when a paper is published in an established scientific journal as peer-reviewed it is offered as an acceptable or possible theory or hypothesis. I never said that his paper was peer reviewed and published, I know that means it is 'accepted' what I said was his paper was well researched.

Here is what I said- "You are insinuating that engineers around the world are conspiring to poke holes in other people's work because they have an agenda, when there are several scientific papers already written and submitted for peer review explain how thermite could be used for a demolition. That one theory was well researched and the only response to it has been name calling and censor."

There are papers written, by engineers, I referenced Jones' later, he isn't the only one who goes with the thermite idea, I know Jones' paper was rejected by mainstream peer reviewed publications but I never made that claim.

I do think he did thorough research, or at least I believe he spent alot of his time on it.

I expressed my opinion and posted to the best of my memory.

I think you over reacted and you were out of line.

That is my opinion.

I am not really concerned if you think I am a liar, that is not why I responded, I responded because you were in an attack mode and
personal attacks are not necessary.

 

This post is an example of what I mean that many of the alternate theories regarding how the buildings collapsed betray a lack of knowledge regarding constuction and physics. It doesn't take steel to melt before it collapse it actually loses its tensile strength at a much lower temperature than the melting point. In fact steel is considered very vulnerable in fire and it is critical to fire protect steel, just today I was reviewing shop drawings submitted from the general contractor on a project that I am working on of the fire proofing of steel. Many have brought up that no steel buildings have collapsed from fire when that is patently untrue. I myself have seen a steel building that was brought down by fire. Following the Rodney King riots in LA I was down in Watts and accross the street from USC there was a steel structure building that had been set fire to and had collapsed.

The other part of this argument is the belief that the impact should've brought the building down right away instead of them collapsing in an hour. Actually if you understand building codes it makes sense why it took an hour to collapse. It is true that the buildings were among the strongest structures designed for their time and addition to the tremendous vertical loads they also were designed to resist trememdous lateral loads from wind but given how close LaGuardia is to Manhattan for the possibility of getting hit by a plane. In terms of resisisting the impact the engineers did an outstanding job but there were a couple of things that they weren't adequately prepared for. One thing that most people don't understand is that the building codes aren't based on saving the structure but to provide enough time to evacuate the occupants. Fire ratings are based upon hour ratings which translate into how much time a a structure can hold up in a fire. Given that there was a raging inferno in the upper stories of the WTC its not surprising that they wouldn't immediate collapse as the structure isn't going to lose strength immediately. According to the reports what doomed the WTC was that the fire proofing on the steel was blown off by the initial impact and explosion. Given that un protected steel would only be able to maintain strength for about an hour it makes perfect sense that it took about an hour for the towers to collapse.

As far as for WTC 7 since it wasn't directly struck it makes sense there was a longer delay and that it didn't suffere damage directly from the initial strikes. What it couldn't resist though was the collapse of the two main towers which in addition to causing a lot of debris released tons of energy. I read somehwere their collapse was the equivalent of setting off about the quarter of the power of the a-bomb dropped on Hiroshima. So it shouldn't be a surprise that WTC 7 was severely damaged enough to cause its eventual collapse.

 

Yes that is true but that doesn't mean their ideas are necessarily more correct. It often seems in these type of debates that people will argue that the fact that someone holds a minority viewpoint that goes against the official story that makes that viewpoint more correct. If anything there is a greater burden of proof on those who hold a minority viewpoint.

 

There is no coherent argument, no smoking gun proof, and no intelligent dissection of events that will dissuade the conspiracy nuts. Not everyone that isn't buying the WT7 story is one... I'd hesitate to call rhester one.

But the conspiracy nuts drive me crazy. They lend credence to the absurd and the ignorant give equal credence to legitimate science. I can't put my finger on what is happening to science and how it's seen in American society... maybe someone can help me.
This is the same nonsense seen in the global warming debates.

 

I agree with you. I don't think something is correct just because it is a minority opinion, that is what most conspiracy ideas come from.

The fire reasoning is a good one, I'm not an engineer but I was a contractor by trade and built commercial buildings in Houston. My father was in commercial construction and was one of the general supt. over the astrodome renovation (boo) among others downtown. I understand commercial construction and I can understand how a fire would severely compromise the structural integrity of a structure.

I also realize just how difficult it would be to sabotage a public building and bring it down by demolition without anyone knowing about it, in fact I think it is impossible. So for me the fire explanation is fine.


But I believe that people like Jones shouldn't just be discredited as conspiracy loonies because they question things like WTC 7's collapse.
I think there needs to be people who ask these kinds of questions. When you can't question then you lose something.

And if these people are sincere and intelligent there shouldn't be such a backlash against them.

They may be wrong for fueling the fires of the conspiracy theorist, but I don't think anyone is harmed by a different opinion.

Unless they are liars.

Lying is wrong.

 

You can be sure I am not into conspiracies nor do I believe them.

All my battles and crusades involve people on drugs, couples going through divorces, teenagers in trouble, single moms trying to get medical care, pay rent and buy groceries, and a long list of other things that have negative affects on people in our county.

Everyday life kind of stuff.

 

Ok, then how did fire on one of the very top floors, Weaken the support beams in the basement? No fire was even reported in the basement... nor was there reports of the fire spreading to the basement, where the main support for the building is set.... Explain to me how a fire on the top floors were so hot it made the support T's that were cut off from the rest of the building weaken? True the top floors probably would have collapsed, but that didn't make the whole building under the impact zone all the way down to the basement collapse....

The Support beams UNDER the WTC were completely gone. A Fire Nor a Collapse would have done that. not even remotely close to making that happen.

 

From the OP:

"The fires on six of the lower floors burned with particular intensity because the water supply for the sprinkler system had been cut off — the upper floors had a backup water supply — and the Fire Department, devastated by the collapse of the twin towers, stopped trying to fight the blaze." (emphasis mine)

It's easy to imagine wild fantasies from a position of ignorance. It's much harder to actually seek out the truth and accept it when you find it.

 

Steven Jones was discredited because he continued to push an absurd conclusion long after his "science" had been exposed as flawed and deceptive. There is no doubt that he's a "conspiracy loony".

 

what a complete and utter waste of bandwith.

 

Here is why I said he shouldn't be discredited-
"Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna c*m laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.[1]


[edit] Research interests and background
Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho where, from 1979 to 1985, he was a senior engineering specialist. He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones studied fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium under U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute sponsorship. Jones also collaborated in experiments at other physics labs, including TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University.

Jones' interests also extend to archaeometry, solar energy,[2][3] and, like many professors at BYU, archaeology and the Book of Mormon.[4] For example, he has sought radiocarbon dating evidence of the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas,[5] and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith's belief that Jesus Christ visited America.[6]


[edit] Cold fusion
In the mid-1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists worked on what he then referred to as Cold Nuclear Fusion in a Scientific American article, but is today known as muon-catalyzed fusion to avoid confusion. Muon-catalyzed fusion was a field of some interest in the 1980s, but its low energy output appears to be unavoidable (due to alpha-muon sticking losses). Jones led a research team that in 1986 achieved 150 fusions per muon (average), releasing over 2,600 MeV of fusion energy per muon, a record which still stands.[7]

Around 1985 Jones then became interested in the anomalous concentration of helium-3 found in the gases escaping from volcanoes. He hypothesized that the high pressures in the Earth's interior might make fusion more likely, and began a series of experiments on what he referred to as piezofusion, or high-pressure fusion. In order to characterize the reactions, Jones designed and built a neutron counter able to accurately measure the tiny numbers of neutrons being produced in his experiments. The counter suggested a small amount of fusion was going on. Jones said the result suggested at least the possibility of fusion, though the process was unlikely to be useful as an energy source.

Pons and Fleischmann (P&F) started their work around the same time. Their work was brought to Jones' attention when they applied for research funding from the Department of Energy, after which the DOE passed their proposal along to Jones for peer review. Realizing their work was very similar, Jones and P&F agreed to release their papers to Nature on the same day, March 24, 1989. However, P&F announced their results at a press event the day before. Jones faxed his paper to Nature.[8]

A New York Times article says that while peer reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that his results likely stemmed from experimental error,[9] most of the reviewing physicists indicated that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones.[10]"

I don't think he became a conspiracy loony because of some brain malfunction. He just came to a different conclusion based on his own work than the govt. with regard to WTC7. He immediately received censor from the Brigham Young engineering dept. and his conflict with the university resulted in him resigning.

Yes, he became a spokesman for the conspiracy loonies. Yes, he has come to the conclusion that there is a dark govt. conspiracy.

That doesn't mean he is a deceiver. Wrong, maybe, but probably sincerely wrong.

The difference between lying and sincerity is this.

If I tell you I will meet you for lunch tomorrow at 1:00 pm at Goode Co.BBQ.
But I forget and make other plans; If I don't show up it doesn't mean I lied to you, it means I forgot what I said because I was telling the truth when I told you I intended to meet you.

Lying involves the intention to deceive someone. If I told you I would meet you somewhere at a time knowing or with the intention of not showing up, that would be a lie.

I doubt Jones is a liar, he is just sincerely wrong.