Blogger of Jared

Steven Jones: Pandering to Paranoia for Popularity

Posted by Wade on September 8th, 2006

It’s true, those who buy into the 9/11 conspiracy theories are gullible and paranoid. And those who continually espouse and propagate the theories are merely pandering to these poor souls in attempt to obtain their own proverbial fifteen minutes of fame. Unfortunately, it’s working.

Even more disconcerting, a professor at BYU is the main proponent of a leading 9/11 conspiracy theory. His name is Steven Jones.

Unfortunately, Jones has been running his mouth about how he thinks the trajedy of September 11, 2001, was perpetrated by Neo-Cons (an absurd term used by academics to polarize and foster paranoia about right-wing political philosophy) in the current government.* He alleges the atrocity was planned and carried out by the government in an attempt to bolster support for U.S. domination of oil-rich Arab countries.*

At first blush, I was interested in his theory (and other variations). And I’ll have to admit, one or two of the issues brought to light could be compelling without a holistic and sober view. Fortunately, I have seen through the dribble. I’ll explain briefly.

In recent news reports and speeches, Jones has conveyed the following:

It is impossible for the towers to have collapsed from the collision of two aeroplanes, as jet fuel doesn’t burn at temperatures hot enough to melt steel beams. The horizontal puffs of smoke - squibs - emitted during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled implosions on lower floors. (See Article: “Who Really Blew up the Twin Towers”).

Also, yesterday Jones was reported to have said, “We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we’re going to get to the bottom of this.” Thus, he of course believes his theory is the truth and claims the “official” story is the conspiracy.

I have three principle beefs with Jones:

1) He claims the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions and the use of thermite; this is because he believes the burning jet fuel could not have “melted” the steel. I find it odd that a professor (of physics no less) can not understand that steel can be weakened before it “melts”. My five-year old can understand that hard metal can be weakened by the impact of a jumbo jet combined with lesser heat. Indeed, I suppose Mr. Jones has no interest in listening to what experts have said about the weakening of steel. His theory has long been debunked! Does anyone else besides me think it is extremely odd that a professor of physics doesn’t understand this? How does he maintain his job? Oh yeah, I almost forgot about that tenure thing.

2) Jones claims it was an “inside job” by the White House. Earth to Professor Jones: by your own admissions, the “job” you propose would take a thousand pounds of thermite in approximately 100 locations in each building! Doesn’t this set off any paranoia alarms in his head? How is it that all this work was accomplished by the White House without one single individual breaking confidence? I suppose Jones believes Paul Wolfowitz planted all the thermite in his spare time away from the World Bank. Sure, it’s plausible; if you’re a nut-case.

Clearly, Jones is nothing but a professor of paranoia!

3) Finally, I am disheartened by the way Jones subtly infuses religion into his argument. He says, “by God” he will get to the bottom of “this”. Well, everyone knows he’s a member of the Church. It’s just not good form! You poor BYU grads. :)

(In case you didn’t link to the articles I cite, you should check out the Popular Mechanics piece–particularly the part about weakening of steel).

156 Responses to “Steven Jones: Pandering to Paranoia for Popularity”

    The red flag about the steel is that there were pools of molten steel found at the bottom of ground zero. Fires from jet fuels could weaken the steel, but not melt it in such a manner.

    RE: #2, I think after more research he has claimed that the charges could have been placed by as few as ten men.

    The Popular Mecanics article was basically written by a member of the gov’t, and doesn’t come close to refuting Dr. Jones’ theories.

    See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf

    I think you and most everybody else underestimates the amount of research he has put into this thing.

    Comment # 1 left by Tim J. on September 8th, 2006

    “It’s true, those who buy into the 9/11 conspiracy theories are gullible and paranoid.”

    Claiming that conspiracies do not exist is about as irresponsible as saying there is a conspiracy involved in all things. Are there not “Secret Combinations” among us?

    Comment # 2 left by Tim J. on September 8th, 2006

    I agree with Tim J.

    I think it is fruitless to disregard absolutely everything that Jones says. Sure, some of it might be erroneous or mistaken, but certainly not all of it. Conversely, those who swallow the government’s official report are obviously not intelligent human beings, because the report contradicts itself in numerous places, while also offering false data and presumptions. I do not consider myself gullible or paranoid, yet you have lumped me in these categories since I believe 9/11 was an inside job.

    Regarding #1: Tim J. already points out one flaw in the government’s story, that being the pools of molten steel. Jet fuel burns rapidly, and would do nothing more than light surrounding papers and desks on fire. Footage of the buildings shows people standing near the hole made by the airplane. Obviously, it’s not that hot. It’s a stretch to assume that the steel was weakened, and it’s an even further stretch to somehow apply that reasoning to WTC 7’s fall, which was not hit by a plane.

    Regarding #2: So thermite would be needed in 100 locations, but a plane would only be needed in one location? That is a weak argument. As Tim points out, it wouldn’t take that many men. How is it that the government pulled this off without any whistleblowers? It wouldn’t be the first time.

    Regarding #3: Mixing religion is nothing new either. I see no problem with seeking the help of God in finding the truth about these matters. Are we not to seek the Holy Ghost? The spirit of discernment? Professor Jones is merely trying to be anxiously engaged in what he sees as a good cause. You might disagree, but many other (intelligent, not gullible or paranoid) people people do not.

    So, Wade, are you saying that you 100% believe the government’s official report on 9/11? Or perhaps you disagree with Professor Jones, but still think there are some lies or fallacies in the report?

    Comment # 3 left by Connor Boyack on September 8th, 2006

    Of note: KSL reports that Professor Jones is on paid leave.

    Also, the state department has released a 10,000 page report rebutting Jones’ theory! Good grief…

    Comment # 4 left by Connor Boyack on September 8th, 2006

    Thanks Wade. As I have been saying over and over again, Jones is merely a Ph.D. attached to unscientific conspiracy theories that have been around for years before Jones started doing his “studies.”

    I do disagree with your claim about neo-conservatives being “an absurd term used by academics to polarize and foster paranoia about right-wing political philosophy.” It is a legitimate term used to describe a ‘new’ conservative ideal of protecting the interests of the state (which is different from a more traditional approach (e.g. Collin Powell) or a ‘ultra’-conservative approach (e.g. Connor Boyack).

    TimJ:

    I think you and most everybody else underestimates the amount of research he has put into this thing.

    I don’t think anybody is underestimating the time Jones has spend Googling ‘wack conspiracy theories’ and ’self endorsing paranoia.’ Jones has offered no new research and no new science. He is merely repeating conspiratorial claims of others and attaching his Ph.D. to them.

    Connor and Time: #1 and #2 the melted steel has been accounted for several times. Jones and his cronies consistently fail to respond to the criticisms. Here is just one of them.

    #3 Religion is the issue for Jones. His paranoia is derived from the Benson era of communistic paranoia, fueled by the secret combinations of the BofM. Communism is dead, so Jones needs a new shadow government to start crying about. This became very evident during Jones’s UVSC lecture (which is a funny story in itself - Jones claimed that UVSC invited him to speak, however Jones actually called UVSC and invited himself). His religious motivations were the main topic of the 50+ minute interview I later had with the directors of Improbable Collapse, the conspiratorial documentary supporting Jones.

    Are there not “Secret Combinations” among us?

    I’m not sure if they are around now, but the LDS Church has a huge history of being involved with ’secret combinations.’

    Connor:

    How is it that the government pulled this off without any whistleblowers? It wouldn’t be the first time.

    Comparing the organized conspiratorial demolition of the WTC to the Gadianton takeover of the Nephite government is utterly fallacious. Do I really need to point out the flaws?

    Comment # 5 left by the narrator on September 8th, 2006

    Narrator,

    You obviously didn’t click the link I provided. He has thouroughly debunked the idea that the molten metal was aluminum. He has also conducted several experiments at BYU, and his research is available to all.

    He has answered his critics and those that have attempted to debunk his theories, and he has done more than simply rehash old theories from the internet.

    I still have not seen anyone tackle the collapse of WTC7–the 9/11 commission didn’t even try.

    Nor have we seen any credible evidence of Bin-Laden doing this, and the FBI agrees.

    Comment # 6 left by Tim J. on September 8th, 2006

    Narrator, I’m not interested in your pointing out any flaws, for all I will do is rebut them with my opinion and understanding, and you will do the same. Calling them fallacious to try and prove your own point is absurd, and not in the spirit of understanding and reasoning. Then again, you’re not likely to care, since you think I’m ‘evil’.

    I would like to know your opinion on the last comment left on the post I just linked:

    Why are you so adamentaly [adamantly] opposed to anyone who criticizes you, …yet you seem hot on the trigger to tear others down?

    Comment # 7 left by Connor Boyack on September 8th, 2006

    Is there not other fuel in such enormous buildings that could make fire hot enough to melt steel?

    It will take a lot more evidence before I even start to wonder in the teeniest little bit whether 9/11 was an inside job. There has to be some evidence that the hijackers had contact with administration folks. Somebody has to come forth with a credible claim that they were in on it. The logistics of such a plot–not just blowing up the buildings, but getting 20 Arab nationals to come, learn how to fly planes, hi-jack planes, and kill themselves, or, if you believe that’s all fake, convincing the world that there were such hijackers–are so overwhelmingly complicated that it is impossible that somebody involved would not have come forth. Impossible. If that makes me naive, so be it. I’ll gladly go through life in blissful naivete rather than being so cynical as to believe that, at a minimum, dozens of powerful U.S. officials and subordinates are evil enough to have orchestrated, wittingly participated in, and are now keeping quiet about the massacre of 3000 of their own.

    Comment # 8 left by Tom on September 8th, 2006

    Tom, there are already claims and suggestions of the terrorists receiving training and being on Uncle Sam’s payroll. This is nothing new, but perhaps you’ve just yet to come across it.

    This page also outlines some of the problems w/ the official 9/11 report. Myopically focusing on the issue of aluminum is like an investigator focusing on the issue of the gold plates, and only that issue, to determine of the gospel is true or not. One needs to take in all associated events, quotes, evidences, and possibilities before passing judgment.

    Comment # 9 left by Connor Boyack on September 8th, 2006

    To begin, I would like to first set out what I don’t want to see this thread turning into. I take note of the personal (ad hominem) attacks between both Narrator and Connor. If it is possible, I ask that this thread maintain some level of respect and clarity (despite the bit of sarcasm in the tone of my post–it’s my post and I’ll pontificate if I want to). By clarity, I mean it is completely okay if there is heated disagreement–indeed, I welcome it–but I hope this won’t detract from clearly delineating each contributor’s view/opinion. So, please try and lay off the personal quibbles on this thread; I enjoy reading the real views and opinions of you both. :)

    Tim J.

    Pools of molten steel

    This has not been dispositively proven! Moreover, I can think of numerous explanations for it, even if it was “steel”, which I doubt.

    I think after more research he has claimed that the charges could have been placed by as few as ten men.

    You “think” he claims this now? Honestly, I don’t care if Jones “thinks” it is plausible for one man to plant the thermite. An honest appraisal of the situation/facts shows that it would take numerous people to maliciously design and carry out a plot to kill their neighbors and keep it silent. And for what??? I repeat, it wasn’t Wolfowitz and his gang planting these bombs; it would have to have been numerous low-rung bomb handlers planting numerous charges in these secured and occupied buildings!

    Your offhand dismissal of the Popular Mechanics article because, according to you, it “was basically written by a member of the gov’t,” only serves to solidify my view that those who believe the conspiracy theory are paranoid and refuse to look at the facts! Please take another look at the contributors to the article!

    Also, I don’t underestimate Jones’ extensive study and work; indeed, I acknowledge he has probably done a lot of work/research. This does nothing but further bolster my view that he is nutty!

    Claiming that conspiracies do not exist is about as irresponsible as saying there is a conspiracy involved in all things.

    Please re-read my post; I never claimed that conspiracy theories don’t exist, I only claim that those who believe the current WWTC theories are paranoid! Your generalization of my very narrow allegation is further proof of your tendency to paranoia.

    Connor:

    I do not consider myself gullible or paranoid, yet you have lumped me in these categories since I believe 9/11 was an inside job.

    Please know that this post is not targeted specifically at you or any other particular individual. I don’t know exactly what you believe or disbelieve; this is why I invited the discussion. While it may be true I think you are paranoid if you buy into the WWTC theory proposed by Jones, I don’t think your insights are worthless by any means. Also, I acknowledge that I may be paranoid about certain things too. My tone in the post is meant to bring out discussion.

    I think it is fruitless to disregard absolutely everything that Jones says.

    Again, I refer you to my comment to Tim: you should re-read my post and find that I actually think a couple of Jones’ points are “interesting”; thus, I don’t “disregard absolutely everything”. Your recharactarization of my view is a common form of logical falacy (straw man)–people often use them unknowingly in an effort to detract from the real issue.

    Obviously, it’s not that hot. It’s a stretch to assume that the steel was weakened, and it’s an even further stretch to somehow apply that reasoning to WTC 7’s fall, which was not hit by a plane.

    It’s not “that hot” eh? Try telling that to those who jumped due to the heat! As for the steel being weakened, it’s in fact NOT a stretch; have you read the Popular Mechanics article I linked to? How and why do you disregard what steel experts say about it being weakened by? For example one expert says: “Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F” (senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction). Jet fuel burns up to 1500 degrees!

    WTC7:

    Experts report that “on about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom–approximately 10 stories–about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.” It was severely damages structurally; why people don’t understand this baffles me! Haven’t you seen the footage of the two towers coming down?

    So thermite would be needed in 100 locations, but a plane would only be needed in one location? That is a weak argument.

    You’re transfering Jones’ argument to me. Jones claims it would be needed in 100 locations in each building, not me. I don’t care how many locations it would be needed in; all I’m saying is that it would take hundreds of people to pull this off (especially if you believe, like Jones, that the government joined with actual terrorists and evaded security, worked through the CIA, and covered it all up). Again, you are recharacterizing my argument here.

    I see no problem with seeking the help of God in finding the truth about these matters.

    Neither do I. But it is an entirely different thing to publicly announce that God is helping Jones get to the bottom of the story. It’s different because everyone knows he’s a BYU professor. My worry is that people will be making inferences (albeit illogical ones) that his position represents the Church’s view of things.

    So, Wade, are you saying that you 100% believe the government’s official report on 9/11? Or perhaps you disagree with Professor Jones, but still think there are some lies or fallacies in the report?

    Those who know me understand that I don’t believe 100% of what anyone reports (with some very rare exceptions). So, to answer your question: I don’t know what exactly the real story is. However, I do know the evidence dispositively proves that terrorists flew commercial airliners into the WTC on 9/11. I also know that steel does not need to melt before it is weakened (this is a scientific fact)! And I know that a very hot fire (estimated at around 1100 degrees) was burning in the towers for a very long time. I know that Jones’ “experiments” are/have been performed on a jar of dust sent to him by some lady in New York. All signs point to his delusion and paranoia.

    As for the government, I’m not sure whether you are refering to the commission report or what; but it doesn’t matter because I’ve already said I don’t automatically believe 100% of anything. You seem to be saying that the Commission was in on the conspiracy too. If you honestly believe this, I suggest taking a look at who was on the commission and also reading a bit more about congressional politics.

    Thanks for noting Jones’ paid leave. This is a very encouraging sign for me!

    Comment # 10 left by Wade on September 8th, 2006

    I’m familiar with the Pop Mech article and who wrote it, specifically Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of the current head of Homeland Security. No paranoia at all.

    “And I know that a very hot fire (estimated at around 1100 degrees) was burning in the towers for a very long time.”

    A little over an hour.

    I’m not aware of any report that refutes molten steel being found on-site. And the fact that many have tried to explain it away leads me to believe that there isn’t such a controversy surrounding it’s existence.

    Comment # 11 left by Tim J. on September 8th, 2006

    TimJ: I have clicked the link you provided, and read over most of it. It is basically a largely updated version of his infamous powerpoint presentation. It furthershows that Jones is merely grabbing unscientific theories off of the internet and saying “I have a Ph.D. and I agree.”

    Jones is just not doing good physical science. Dr. Greening is doing good science (who wrote several papers on the WTC collapse, which I provided a link to one).

    Connor is correct about the conspiracy theorists needing the bulk of their evidence to make their strongest point. This is because the large sweep can seem convincing, however, it’s when the particulars are examined, the whole theory begins to collapse (no pun intended).

    Comment # 12 left by the narrator on September 8th, 2006

    Narrator:

    Our disagreement about the use of the now pejorative term “neo-con” will have to wait for another post. But if you can point me to anyone who currently describes themself as a neo-con, I would be interested. And, as a side note, have you read anything from Leo Strauss yet in your studies?

    Comment # 13 left by Wade on September 8th, 2006

    BTW,

    I don’t see the “Nobody involved has come forward” argument applies. I find that to be the absolute least compelling argument that never fails to arise.

    If someone came forth and said, “I was in the WTC and planted one of the thermite charges…” you would really believe him and all the other theories? I’m guessing no, so I wish this argument would disappear.

    Comment # 14 left by Tim J. on September 8th, 2006

    Tim:

    Do you admit that the PM article was contributed to by a huge litany of experts having nothing to do with the government? If so, what would it matter even if Bush wrote the article?

    Comment # 15 left by Wade on September 8th, 2006

    I will readily admit it was written well, and by very qualified individuals, but with a preconceived notion of what the outcomes were going to be. And it fails to answer all of the questions. It’s the same problem people have with Prof. Jones’ experiments.

    Speaking of which, I think PM is releasing a fairly thick book on refuting 9/11 conspiracy theories.

    On another note, MSNBC has an article on the 9/11 Conspiracy here:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/

    They’re on-line poll shows 47% (out of 30,000+ voters) feel the Gov’t had some involvement.

    Comment # 16 left by Tim J. on September 8th, 2006

    I find that to be the absolute least compelling argument that never fails to arise.

    I think you misunderstand the argument. I’m not arguing that it’s not plausible someone IN on the conspiracy would stay quite (of course they won’t admit their culpability). Rather, I’m saying that it is utterly impossible to keep it a secret from innocent people at the time. How is that so many political insiders in a heavily pluralistic government are keeping silent? This is why the argument is not the “least compelling”, it is the MOST compelling. It cannot be explained away or refuted!

    Comment # 17 left by Wade on September 8th, 2006

    They’re on-line poll shows 47% (out of 30,000+ voters) feel the Gov’t had some involvement.

    This makes me nauseous.

    Comment # 18 left by Wade on September 8th, 2006

    I think Canada was somehow involved… -

    Comment # 19 left by Okie on September 8th, 2006

    If I may weigh in on the melted steel, As I understand it, ground zero burned and smoldered for weeks after the attack with pockets burning at an excess of 2000 degrees. I understand that the initial explosion probably did not/could not melt the steel but the countless hours of burning wreckage provided sufficient heat for such an occurrence. This is evidenced by the eyewitness accounts of dripping molten steel being pulled out of the debris during the extensive clean-up process. Surely you aren’t suggesting that some initial planted explosives could have prevented the steel from cooling for several weeks?

    Comment # 20 left by Ryan on September 8th, 2006

    If someone came forth and said, “I was in the WTC and planted one of the thermite charges…” you would really believe him and all the other theories? I’m guessing no, so I wish this argument would disappear.

    No, I wouldn’t believe a person, but I would believe evidence, of which, if this was orchestrated by the government, there is a whole lot out there waiting to be discovered.

    I’m not arguing that it’s not plausible someone IN on the conspiracy would stay quite (of course they won’t admit their culpability).

    Actually, considering the number of people who would have to have been involved I would expect at least one of them to have enough conscience or get scared enough to come forth. Anyways, you’d have to be an absolute maniac to wittingly participate in this kind of thing, and maniacs don’t always act in their own interest.

    Which raises another point: every person who wittingly participated in the putative plot would have to be a maniac on par with Timothy McVeigh, only much more intelligent and capable (after all, they did get away (scot free!) with what would have to be considered the most logistically difficult crime in history). That kind of person is one in a million. I find it very difficult to believe that dozens of maniacs hid their psychosis from the world as they were independently elected and appointed into the highest positions of power within the U.S. government, all at the same time. The odds of that kind of perfect storm of psychosis coming together in the highest levels of the U.S. government are just too low to take seriously.

    Comment # 21 left by Tom on September 8th, 2006

    You’re discounting a guys arguments because Chertoff is a distant cousin. Talk about ad homen. . .

    BTW some might find the interview with the Popular Science guy here.

    Comment # 22 left by Clark on September 8th, 2006

    Wade,

    I’m not sure I understand (forgive me). You’re saying it would be impossible for the people involved to keep this from the general public because…

    The reason it’s been fairly easy to get away with is that we had a scapegoat ready to go, bin Laden. No need to search for the guilty when we’ve been told who’s responsible.

    The WTC is not listed on his FBI wanted poster, and if you ask them why, they will tell you they have no credible evidence that he is connected. Yet, we all “know” he did it. How? Because we were told he did it.

    There was no investigation whatsoever that took place to find the culprits. Blame was merely assigned and a war was waged.

    Comment # 23 left by Tim J. on September 8th, 2006

    I’m not completely discounting them, just taking it into consideration.

    I’m still open (and hoping) that I’m wrong, by the way, so I do read about every article I can find that does refute the conspiracy claims. But I have not yet been satisfied.

    Comment # 24 left by Tim J. on September 8th, 2006

    All:

    Very good comments. I’m not ignoring them, I just don’t have the time during the day to address everything. I will in time.

    Comment # 25 left by Wade on September 8th, 2006

    Evidence sufficient (and admissible) for criminal prosecution isn’t the same as evidence that lets one know. Denying the Bin Laden connection is especially odd given that he just released video of himself with the hijackers and was quite willing to take credit.

    The problem with conspiracy theories is the odd way burden of proof is handled. Everyone else’s claims have to reach this unrealistically high proof level whereas ones own claims are allowed extremely weak evidence. And the burden is never on those making the most controversial (and frankly unlikely) claims. Rather it is on those making the most likely claims.

    May I submit the burden is on the conspiracy theorists and not those providing what is clearly the most likely explanation? (i.e. that the planes flown by hijackers into the WTF from an organization that had tried to blow up said buildings before just might be involved in their collapse?)

    Comment # 26 left by Clark on September 8th, 2006

    But that’s just too darn logical, sensible, and obvious Clark. ;)

    Comment # 27 left by Wade on September 8th, 2006

    I agree, Clark.

    But if a serial killer released a video that showed him admitting to several killings around the country, you’d think that’d be evidence enough, right?

    The problem is with the videos. There is a lot of controversy surrounding them (how they were obtained, the quality, etc.)

    Comment # 28 left by Tim J. on September 8th, 2006

    As I said Tim, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists. What’s more likely? That an administration who has been incompetent at nearly everything they’ve done conducted a flawless conspiracy or that the guy saying “I did it” and who was trying to do things like this for years did it?

    Comment # 29 left by Clark on September 8th, 2006

    NIST just released its 10,000 page report on this very subject. Some of the FAQs seem pointed directly at Steve Jones and his organization. Naturally they’ve responded.

    [Disclosure: I know Steve Jones and his family well, having lived in his basement and eaten at his table over a period of over 14 months. He’s a good Latter-day Saint and a good physicist. He’s quiet, conservative (idealogically, not politically, though he did vote for Bush twice, IIRC), good-natured, etc. This is pertinent because I’m trying to look at this issue objectively, independent of my respect and love for my friend.]

    As a physicist, what’s interesting to me in the NIST report is the frequent repetition of the phrase, “global collapse then ensues.” Their timeline seems to make good sense as far as it goes, but it always ends just as the collapse initiates. The story was just getting to the good (physics) part!

    What does make me nervous is NIST’s FAQ #6. That’s just bad physics. Really bad. I’m hoping to do some quick calculations and post the results.

    Comment # 30 left by mistaben on September 8th, 2006

    Mistaben:

    Thank you for pointing me to the NIST sites! I honestly don’t see how or why anyone could believe the conspiracy theory after reading into the NIST investigations.

    I’m interested to read what you have to say about the falling buildings! I am particularly interested in the fact that it is impossible to know the exact time it took for the buildings to completely collapse, due to the dust clouds etc. If you need a place to publish your work on that, the BoJ would love to post it here. Just let me know. Even if you are posting it elsewhere; I would like to have you display it here too.

    Comment # 31 left by Wade on September 8th, 2006

    I have not chimed in because I know nothing about it. But that doesn’t stop me from having an opinion.

    If there was real credible evidence for the White House to be involved in a conspiracy regarding the 9/11 attacks, wouldn’t someone like Katie Couric be all over it like crazy? I mean the Monica Lewinsky stuff would be peanuts compared to this. This may seem intellectually lazy on my part, but hey, the press loves a scandal. Why would democrats and national TV news stay away from this?

    Also, if we are worried about melted steel, could it not be that the terrorists had stuff in their checked or carry on luggage that could provide needed fuel? This may be way of base.

    Anyway, carry on.

    Comment # 32 left by Eric Nielson on September 8th, 2006

    wouldn’t someone like Katie Couric be all over it like crazy?

    AWESOME! It’s a good thing I’m banished to the far corner of the Library Annex in the Court of Appeal because I’m laughing right now. You’re so right Eric.

    But of course, I predict the delusional response will be that the liberal media is in on it too; or perhaps that the government has paid them off.

    Comment # 33 left by Wade on September 8th, 2006

    I was interested to read in the paper that part of the reason he is on paid leave is because he has not published in appropriate scientific venues. That to me says a lot right there. Solid science will typically not be afraid of peer review and will usually seek to be published in reputable places.

    Comment # 34 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on September 8th, 2006

    M&M:

    I noticed the same problem. Indeed, it does say “a lot”.

    Comment # 35 left by Wade on September 8th, 2006

    If blacksmiths in the ad 200 and ad 300 could take organic ingredients and burn them inside a brick forge to get it to a temp to melt steel, I imagnine a huge fire buring deep in the bowels of TONS of insulating concrete could probably explain the melted steel.

    Comment # 36 left by Okie on September 8th, 2006

    Okie:

    Good point. There are numerous other explanations too; Eric pointed one out above that I had not thought of before. But the problem with those who adhere to this conspiracy theory is they don’t seem to want to believe any explanation other than what is alleged by the theorists.

    The wikipedia article on the origins of conspiracy theories is fascinating! I think it properly describes adherents by saying:

    Humans naturally respond to events or situations which have had an emotional impact upon them by trying to make sense of those events, typically in spiritual, moral, political, or scientific terms. Events which seem to resist such interpretation—for example, because they are, in fact, unexplainable—may provoke the inquirer to look harder for a meaning, until one is reached that is capable of offering the inquirer the required emotional satisfaction.

    This describes to a tee those who refuse to look at the more persuasive evidence against the theory! They require an emotional satisfaction that is not supplied by the facts, thus they are drawn in to conspiracy theories to alieve their disbelief.

    Comment # 37 left by Wade on September 8th, 2006

    While walking to the bus this afternoon, I had a thought occur to me. While not applicable in every situation, and perhaps while not fully applicable here, I drew the following comparison:

    This discussion seems to be focused on all scientific evidence, understanding, and proof to back up the claims each side is making. Rather than focusing on principle, purpose, or possibility, we are instead discussing the nitty gritty details of how this could or could not have occured.

    And then I thought of the Book of Mormon (or, on a larger scale, the entire gospel). There are numerous critics, scholars, scientists, and others who “prove” that the BoM is false, based on DNA, geography, horse bones, and anything else they can get their hands on that might serve their cause.

    And what do we do? We ignore them. We don’t rebut them point for point (although some do, such as FARMS, FAIR, Jeff Lindsay, and others) because for us, it is a matter of faith.

    Faith. Yes, I have faith in the existence of secret combinations, both within our government and without. I have faith that the 9/11 story is much bigger than what you can read in the government’s official report. I have faith that the Book of Mormon testifies of these things, and that they currently exist and are in operation. I have faith that there our government is becoming more corrupt, from influence both within and without.

    Faith. Perhaps that’s why Jones doesn’t bother refuting every nit-picky item tossed his way. Granted, he is a scientist, and “proof” is the name of his game. But when opposition arises, it arises in full force, and from all angles. This is just as true with the Book of Mormon (and the gospel) as it is with the things we have been discussing here today.

    Please note that while I hold the beliefs I do, I am not drawing this comparison to prove, by association, that since the Book of Mormon is subjected to these attacks and it is yet true, the same thing applies here. Draw whatever conclusion you like, I only offer this as my observation. Given how low my blood sugar was at the time of the thought, I can’t speak for its conclusiveness. :)

    Comment # 38 left by Connor Boyack on September 8th, 2006

    Connor:

    Whether you believe me or not, I respect your freedom to hold your view and position. And your analogy to faith is somewhat interesting. Yet, I think it is a red herring.

    Here’s why:

    There are two types of faith: true and false faith. One can only have real faith in something that is true (Joseph defined it as believing in things that are not seen, but which are true–see LOF). You may not like the reality, but one cannot have faith in something for which there is no evidence to reveal it’s truth. What I’m saying is that God has never asked his people to believe blindly in Him; he ALWAYS gives evidence (typically through prophets–the HG confirms the truthfulness of the evidence).

    My point: you can call your belief in the conspiracy “faith” all you want, but that does not mean it is real faith; i.e. belief in something true. So, we are back to square one! It is clear that the evidence we have is stacked WAY against the conspiracy and goes to show that there was no “inside job”.

    Unfortunately, you still have to deal with evidence when you’re dealing with faith.

    Comment # 39 left by Wade on September 8th, 2006

    Wade:

    Your statement is double sided; it applies to your stance as much as mine. Simply because the evidence is allegedly in favor of your stance, that does not mean that it is “true”. My position might be the true one, and therefore my belief is faith, as you have correctly defined it.

    It all boils down to what really is truth. If the spirit has confirmed to me that my faith is correctly placed, then I am right. The problem arises when somebody with an opposing view says that theirs is the true position. Who, then, is right? I suppose that when all things are shouted from the rooftops, we shall find out.

    The evidence for the Book of Mormon might seem to some people to be largely against its truthfulness. Nevertheless, we agree that it is true, and that our faith is justified. Evidence does not always imply truthfulness. There remains much to be seen, many questions to be answered, much insider information to ascertain, before one can definitively state what the truth is in this case. Until that happens, both sides will continue to argue back and forth, and people will believe what they believe.

    Comment # 40 left by Connor Boyack on September 8th, 2006

    Connor:
    It all boils down to what really is truth. If the spirit has confirmed to me that my faith is correctly placed, then I am right.

    It’s that kind of statement that is why Jones was placed on paid leave. According to the Deseret New’s quotation of Carri Jenkins: “It is a concern when faculty bring the university name into their own personal matters of concern,”

    When you bring a principle of the gospel in to argue your own personal viewpoints and opinions (which you are completely entitled to have, opinions that is) is when I believe it has gone too far. You are entitled to your beliefs about 9/11, but as it has not been proven one way or the other, arguing that you can use faith just as you use faith to believe in the BoM seems like gospel hobbying to me. In summary: faith in what you believe about 9/11 is not the same as faith in the BoM, different usages of the same word.

    Comment # 41 left by Jason on September 8th, 2006

    Jason voiced my thoughts exactly.

    Also, I would point to the weight of the evidence. It all comes down to the evidence. I think if one takes an objective look void of emotion about the circumstances, one must conclude the evidence clearly refutes the conspiracy theory.

    Comment # 42 left by Wade on September 8th, 2006

    RANDOM LOCAL FIRES
    DO NOT CAUSE
    NON-RANDOM GLOBAL COLLAPSES

    RANDOM: Not high temperatures, not on every floor, hottest at and localized to the site of plane impact (unless you’re talking about Building 7, which was not hit by a plane).

    LOCAL: The fires occurred and reached their hottest temperatures in the areas of the buildings near the sites of impact. Therefore, the claim that jet fuel significantly weakened the steel only applies to the localized area in which the fires burned. Most of the steel in the building did not even make direct contact with the fire.

    NON-RANDOM: Straight down, into its footprint, near freefall speed. Furthermore, if the fires were hotter at their core, there would have been an assymetric weakening of steel supports (i.e. the steel closest to the crash would be the weakest). Therefore, the steel at the impact zone would begin to weaken and bend before the rest of the steel had weakened. Since the crashes were not precisely placed in the centers of the buildings, but skewed toward one side or the other, some amount of angular momentum would undoubtedly evolve and the buildings would TOPPLE OVER.

    GLOBAL: The buildings COMPLETELY COLLAPSED, not just the portions that had been damaged, or the portions that were burning. In fact, the building was pulverized, turning much of the concrete into dust.

    If you are acquainted with things like MATH, PROBABILITY, AND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, you would quickly realize that the explanation given by the 9-11 Commission and the NIST report is LESS REASONABLE THAN THAT OF PROFESSOR JONES.

    Sure, I would agree that it is very unlikely that such a conspiracy could be orchestrated by elements of our government. However, IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN THE VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF PHYSICS AND PROBABILITY. And we’ve been told that the these laws were violated THREE TIMES ON THE SAME DAY. Give me a break.

    “Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of the SECRET COMBINATION WHICH SHALL BE AMONG YOU” (Ether 8:26)

    “I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 1:14–16; D&C 84:49–53.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A SECRET COMBINATION that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world. (See Ether 8:18–25.)” (Ezra Taft Benson, “I Testify” October 1988 Gen. Conf.)

    “And again, I say unto you that the enemy in the secret chambers seeketh your lives. Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land. I tell you these things because of your prayers; wherefore, treasure up wisdom in your bosoms, lest the wickedness of men reveal these things unto you by their wickedness, in a manner which shall speak in your ears with a voice louder than that which shall shake the earth; but if ye are prepared ye shall not fear.” (D&C 38:28-30)

    PLEASE WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. YOU HAVE BEEN AMPLY WARNED.

    Comment # 43 left by Chris M on September 8th, 2006

    “You are entitled to your beliefs about 9/11, but as it has not been proven one way or the other, arguing that you can use faith just as you use faith to believe in the BoM seems like gospel hobbying to me.” -Jason

    “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of ALL THINGS.”
    - Moroni

    To say that the principles of faith and revelation only apply to the Book of Mormon, etc, is to spiritually compartmentalize yourself. You can’t say, “In my job I’ll live by the Spirit,” or “In my home I’ll live by the Spirit,” and then say, “But the Holy Spirit doesn’t apply to my study of world events, politics, etc.” This is hypocrisy in one of its most subtle forms.

    We have been commanded to study and apply the principle of revelation to all things in the world in which we live.

    I prefer to stand with Moroni on this one; I believe that the Holy Ghost can and does testify to more than just the veracity of The Book of Mormon.

    Comment # 44 left by Chris M on September 8th, 2006

    Point taken Chris M. I’m not suggesting we should do that; we should include the gospel, prayer, revelation, etc… in all we do certainly.

    So what happens when you have two people, identical in every way (I know it doesn’t really occur, but for the sake of argument, identical in all the ways that matter for the sake of this excercise) that can stand face to face and both claim to have faith (the same type of faith that many have regarding the veracity of the BoM) in their point of view on a subject, yet they are exact oppposites? IE: 9/11 was carried out by individuals carrying out their own plan vs. plotted by secret combinations in the U.S. government, or any other of a number of subjects for which there exists divergent viewpoints and not enough physical evidence or facts to prove either correct?

    If you can come up with the right answer to that you are a better man than me. I don’t know what the RIGHT answer is to that, I have some theories and ideas that I currently hold to, but I can’t say they’re right — absolutely right, I’m not omniscient. Therefore, that is why I am opposed to using something like faith as a tool to show how convinced I am of something. “Joe, you’ll do a great job, I have faith in you” is a commonly used alternate meaning of faith, if you want to use it that way, fine but I’m not really saying I have faith in Joe the way I have faith in the BoM.

    Comment # 45 left by Jason on September 8th, 2006

    PLEASE WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. YOU HAVE BEEN AMPLY WARNED.

    “In the Church we have the agency to believe whatever we want to believe about whatever we want to believe. But we are not authorized to teach it to others as truth.”
    Boyd K. Packer, “The Spirit of Revelation,” Ensign, Nov. 1999, 23

    Comment # 46 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on September 8th, 2006

    As to the faith discussion, I stick to my initial point about it being a complete red herring in this context. The faith issue advances neither side of the argument one inch. So I’m leaving it behind for now.

    Chris:

    The propaganda has gotten to you. Your facts are wrong.

    Not high temperatures. . . .

    Temperatures were steady around 1000 degrees. If that’s not hot, you need to read up on your facts about weakening steel.

    Straight down, into its footprint, near freefall speed.

    Wrong, wrong, and unknown! Watch the video footage my friend. It is clear the top-end of the top portion of the South Tower collapsed AWAY from the so called “footprint” of the building. This is a good photo of it. Because of the smoke cloud and debris scattered for blocks, no one can determine the exact path to the ground. Moreover, those who claim to know the exact timing or speed of the falling buildings are only speculating! The dust cloud prevents an accurate depiction.

    The buildings COMPLETELY COLLAPSED, not just the portions that had been damaged, or the portions that were burning. In fact, the building was pulverized, turning much of the concrete into dust.

    WRONG! Take a look at the photos. Does this look like “pulverization” to you? I’m sure you’re aware that the debris was several stories high. Why then do you make such claims? One can only assume you do so to spread the propaganda. Get real, if it was merely pulverized “dust”, it would have taken far less time to clean up!

    Your citations to scripture are great. I’m not saying there are no such thing as conspiracies or evil in the government. Anyone who knows me will tell you about my critical (and often cynical) view of the government. But 9/11 was simply NOT an inside job! If you’re looking for real cominations in government take a look at your Congressman or Senator; I would be willing to bet they are highly corrupt and don’t represent the interests of their jurisdiction!

    Comment # 47 left by Wade on September 8th, 2006

    I also know Professor Jones. I took two Physics classes from him while I was studying at BYU. I spoke with on several occasions. He was very kind and humble during our chats and his teaching. However, I have to agree with Wade on this conspiracy theory. I think it is absolutely crazy. I have not spent a lot of time reading his article, but the bits and pieces I have read, I just cannot believe the government took part in the collapse of the towers. Sure, mistakes were made. I feel very sorry for Prof. Jones and what he has gotten himself into. Sometimes science and scientific research leads to incorrect and false theories. I’m not saying there are no secret combinations going on in the government, but the scriptures also teach that men can be deceived. I’m also not saying that Prof. Jones was deceived.

    Comment # 48 left by Tyler on September 8th, 2006

    The previous post was written by Tyler W. not Tyler. I don’t want anyone to get confused.

    Comment # 49 left by Tyler W. on September 9th, 2006

    Wade, thanks for the links to those pictures. The one with the tipsy topsy top was particularly compelling.

    Comment # 50 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on September 9th, 2006

    Your citations to scripture are great. I’m not saying there are no such thing as conspiracies or evil in the government.

    And let me just say that I’m not saying (above) that I don’t think such things exist, either. I just get a little sqeamish when I feel someone is taking the position of “warning” others to such an extent, esp. on something that is controversial, with no clear prophetic backing. (Sorry if that was a little too blunt, or if I misread your intent, Chris.)

    Comment # 51 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on September 9th, 2006

    To Wade:
    “Temperatures were steady around 1000 degrees. If that’s not hot, you need to read up on your facts about weakening steel.”
    Okay, I stand corrected - and I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong. Thank you for helping me get my facts straight.

    However, to be fair, here are some follow up questions that need to be asked:
    1) The temperatures of “what” were steady around 1000 degrees? The fire or the steel?
    2) If the fire was steady around 1000 degrees, the steel was definitely cooler, so how hot could we guess the steel got, factoring in all the heat loss to the air around the fires and the steel.
    3) How many floors were involved in the fire?
    4) On which floor did the fire reach 1000 degrees? - there had to be some sort of peak temperature area - and then a decrease in temperature moving outward from it.

    So hear is the logic behind your opinion: “Steel is significantly weakened at 1000 degrees,” followed by, “the fires burned at 1000 degrees,” and finally the gigantic leap is made, “the building therefore completely collapsed due to a weakening in the steel caused by fire.”

    Put this all together now: You say that 1000 degree fires can cause a complete collapse. For this to happen, the fires must transfer almost all of their heat to the steel - and this fire must be spread throughout all of the building, and be very strong and even in intensity - so that all of the steel within the building is significantly weakened. Then it must all fail at the same time. Can you see how this becomes very improbably as you actually think it through?

    Now most people, especially those who don’t want to believe the “conspiracy theory,” will read your explanation and then have their minds fully satisfied, without actually thinking it through. They will then, like you, go on repeating this same thing and never pause to examine if the claim is valid or probable.

    And the “propaganda” has gotten to me? Yeah - Steven Jones and his “propaganda machine” have taken over my mind. I have been manipulated by people who want to undermine my allegiance to the war on terror. Wrong. I believe that we have been lied to, and I believe so because I have logically thought this through.

    To Everyone:
    Trust me, I don’t want to believe that we’ve been lied to. Also, I’m well aware of the crap (for lack of a better word) that’s out there concerning all this. Yes, there are crazy and unbelievable conspiracy theories out there. Yes, some people will take incoherent and unfounded rumors and present them as facts and use them to “prove” something. Yes - it’s all out there, on both sides of this issue.

    Steven Jones is not on the fringe. For the most part, especially in his paper, he has kept it to science. I would encourage all of you to read his paper for two reasons:
    1) So you can have a correct picture of who he really is - and what his message really is - instead of just relying on everyone else to tell you about him.
    2) So you can become acquainted with the key problems with the government story.

    Steven Jones held a meeting last October with I believe 50 different faculty at BYU. After presenting his findings and the main problems with the government reports, all but one of the faculty present agreed that there needed to be more investigation. The last guy changed his mind the next day. Most reasonable people - who are humble enough to consider his arguments will realize that he is on to something - and that he’s not a crazy.

    I know him personally. He is a good man. He is not crazy. Please don’t assault his character unless you meet him yourself. Don’t disparage his work until you have acquainted yourself with it.

    It’s only fair.

    Comment # 52 left by Chris M on September 9th, 2006

    By the way - have any of you watched the video of WTC 7’s collapse?

    This is the one focused on by Dr. Jones. There is no tipsy-topsy stuff going on with this one. It is straight down, very neat.
    www.st911.org
    should have a link to the video of WTC 7’s collapse.

    www.journalof911studies.com
    is a great resource for scientific reasoning/etc concerning all this. They are fair too; they even published an article by F R Greening in August’s issue which was in favor of the government’s position.

    Really guys, there IS something to this. I’m not saying to throw out everything you believed about 9/11 - but I am asking that you at least thoughtfully re-evaluate your beliefs about it - and become acquainted with and really scrutinize the alternative claims.

    Comment # 53 left by Chris M on September 9th, 2006

    Chris:

    You have made numerous conclusions from only one thing I said about heat in the buildings. Please refer to my above comments to see that what you are doing is called making a straw man argument; people often do this to divert the issue/argument. Furthermore, I can tell you have not read the NIST reports. If you have read them, I don’t know why are dismissing so much information offhand.

    As for your claims about BYU supporting Jones, I’ve got news for you: as of yesterday, your claims of support have been completely debunked, it appears that he will probably be fired as a result of his bogus science and lack of peer-reviewed reporting!

    I’m not saying Jones is an evil or “bad” guy; I’m only saying that he’s absolutely NUTS when it comes to 9/11! A lot of really good people are nutty.

    Your facts are just plain wrong in so many things; your view of BYU’s support of Jones is only one.

    Comment # 54 left by Wade on September 9th, 2006

    Steven Jones held a meeting last October with I believe 50 different faculty at BYU. After presenting his findings and the main problems with the government reports, all but one of the faculty present agreed that there needed to be more investigation. The last guy changed his mind the next day.

    That’s not what BYU said (but of course, BYU is probably being pressured by the Shadow Government… and possibly C.O.B.R.A.)

    Comment # 55 left by the narrator on September 9th, 2006

    Wade:
    I don’t think Jones will be fired.

    Secondly, I didn’t say BYU supported Jones, I only mentioned the meeting at BYU to establish the point that Jones’ arguments and the science behind them were strong enough to convince many of his colleagues at BYU that there were flaws in the government story.

    I just can’t believe the NIST theory of how the buildings collapsed - it is just not reasonable - and does not adequately explain the collapse. It is mainly focused on how the collapse could have been initiated, and then does very little, if any, analysis of how the collapse ensued. I’m sorry, the odds are against it - there is no way the unaffected steel on the lower floors behaved the way it did without controlled demolition.

    As far as straw man arguments go - this blog is laden with them.

    As for reading NIST’s report - and in reference to your earlier comment about nobody being able to measure the time the buildings fell, NIST is the one who estimated that the buildings fell in 9 and 11 seconds.

    And Narrator:
    Keep your bullcrap to yourself - your “shadow government, C.O.B.R.A., etc” stuff is really lacking in intellectual value. Stick to the facts and debate them - don’t start throwing in that crap to somehow lump Jones in with wacko conspiracy theories. He and his methods are different. What’s that called, exactly, Wade? An ad hominem attack?

    To all reading this:
    I’m done blogging here. I hope for those of you who want to know the real truth about all of this - that my posts of have been helpful. You are who I care about, because your minds may not be made up yet - and I can’t stand to see people be manipulated. Oh, and Wade, don’t try to refute that comment about manipuation - I’m not saying that you’re intentionally manipulating people - but whether you’re the axe, or the hand holding it, you are accomplishing the same purpose.

    Farewell and good luck in the next five years - because there will undoubtedly be much much more of this stuff going on. And then, when things become more clear, and you finally begin to realize that maybe Jones and I weren’t so crazy after all, you will wished you had changed your mind. Mark my words, in that day, you will remember this specific moment. Hopefully by then it will not be too late.

    “And wo unto the deaf that will not hear; for they shall perish. Wo unto the blind that will not see; for they shall perish also. Wo unto the uncircumcised of heart, for a knowledge of their iniquities shall smite them at the last day. Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.” (2 Ne 9:31-34)

    Comment # 56 left by Chris M on September 9th, 2006

    Chris,
    I have to ask, what do you expect people to do with this “truth”? (Again, I am not saying I have my mind made up one way or another, but again, you strike me as trying to play a prophet-like role (which makes me squirm)). OK, suppose I change my mind at your invitation. Then what? So what? I don’t see what you hope to accomplish, practically speaking.

    Comment # 57 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on September 9th, 2006

    Chris:

    I’m sorry you feel the way you do about the blog. I acknowledge I may get a bit too confrontational at times; but I have specifically tried to keep my comments in this thread from attacking individuals rather than their arguments. I’ve enjoyed your comments even though I disagree with them. It basically comes down to the fact that we just generally disagree about perceived facts.

    For the record, I never said I completely agree with everything NIST has said (an example is my personal distaste for anyone who claims to know the timing of the collapses).

    Further, I find it unfortunate that you would give up so soon. Also, it’s disconcerting to me that you would allege “this blog” being “full” of straw man arguments! You’re right that many of the threads contain many straw man arguments by those visiting here; but it’s indicative of your style that you can’t point to any in my posts or comments. I’m not saying I’ve never made one; but it’s quite another thing to allege that I’m “full” of them.

    In a rather ironic manner, your response to my challenge against your previous straw man argument is another straw man: i.e. you didn’t address my challenge you merely changed the subject and alleged I make many of them.

    But once again, sorry you don’t find anything of worth here; I actually have not completely made up my mind about 9/11. But I do know that Jones is nutty (if he weren’t, he would still be teaching at BYU).

    Comment # 58 left by Wade on September 9th, 2006

    Mr. Wade,

    What do you know about physics? Be specific!
    What credentials or peer reviewed opinion do you have for your comments?

    Comment # 59 left by Darren Kamalu on September 10th, 2006

    Wade says:

    I actually have not completely made up my mind about 9/11. But I do know that Jones is nutty (if he weren’t, he would still be teaching at BYU).

    Where is your peer reviewed opinion on him being “nutty?” This could be construed as an attempt to damage him personally for which YOU would be personally liable. What “AUTHORITY” placed those words in your mouth?

    Comment # 60 left by Darren Kamalu on September 10th, 2006

    As I’m studying for my upcoming qualifying exams (which, having passed, I will become a physics Ph.D. candidate vs. my current status as “pre-candidate”), I haven’t much time to spend on these issues, much less do my aforementioned rough physics analysis.

    I just had to note a couple of things.

    1) BYU’s actions are consistent with any number of possible scenarios. The most likely to my eyes is that the administration is concerned that his continued research and visibility in this arena may be hurting not only BYU’s (and therefore the Church’s) image, but the university’s ability to fulfill its mission.

    Should Steve be fired (or asked to resign, &c), all it would mean is that his course is no longer immediately convergent with BYU’s. It wouldn’t mean BYU is part of the conspiracy on the one hand, nor that Steve is an apostate on the other.

    2) I once stated that my main hesitation to believe non-government explanations has to do with Occam’s Razor. Having written that and contemplated a bit, I have changed my mind.

    The PRIMARY reason I hesitate is that the Official Explanation allows me to continue my ordinary, complacent, reactive life. To believe my government could act in this way might require radical changes in the way I live. So am I burying my head in the sand? I don’t know, but I do suspect this is a source of discomfort for many other people considering alternative 9/11 explanations nowadays.

    Comment # 61 left by mistaben on September 10th, 2006

    Tyler says:
    “I have to agree with Wade on this conspiracy theory. I think it is absolutely crazy. I have not spent a lot of time reading his article, but the bits and pieces I have read, I just cannot believe the government took part in the collapse of the towers.”

    So, it is not about the FACTS, it is about what YOU CAN OR CANNOT BELIEVE! And, your present status indicates you believe whatever supports your idols of the mind and heart. If I am wrong, please engage me ON THE FACTS and not what you WANT TO BE TRUE!

    Comment # 62 left by Darren Kamalu on September 10th, 2006

    Thank you Mistaben for your comment. For we all bury our heads in the sand when our livelihood is challenged!

    Comment # 63 left by Darren Kamalu on September 10th, 2006

    Thank you Mistaben for your comment. For we all bury our heads in the sand when our livelihood is challenged!

    OK, I’ll ask you. What do you suggest we should be doing besides believing what you claim to know is true? (I am not yet decided on this issue, but am curious to know what those who believe it all 100% suggest we should be doing.)

    Comment # 64 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on September 10th, 2006

    Darren:

    What do you know about physics? Be specific!

    Very good challenge! I obtained a 4.0 in one single basic college level physics course. And mind you, the 4.0 means absolutely nothing: institutions of higher learning now days are a joke. So in other words, I know nothing more than a 5th grader. Your point is well made; and I take note of it. Yet, it’s a distraction from what I see as the real issue: i.e. there are numerous physics Ph.D.s who have debunked Jones’ work years ago. The evidence I’ve read, discovered, and can see for myself, clearly reveals Jones’ bogus theory. As for your challenge that my opinions on this website are not peer reviewed; it’s silly because I’m not a professor with any credentials at all and I’m only pontificating from what I see–this is an extremely casual discussion forum, one that requires no pseudocredentials. Please, by all means, feel free to dismiss me and my thoughts here because I’m no Ph.D.! I won’t be offended; indeed, I expect it.

    However, before you go like the others, there is one thing I do know about and therefore must correct you concerning. Regarding my comment about Jones being “nutty”, you have said:

    This could be construed as an attempt to damage him personally for which YOU would be personally liable.

    WRONG! Basic tort laws governing defamation provide that the plaintiff must prove the defendant made a FALSE statement of FACT ABOUT the plaintiff which CAUSED actual DAMAGE to the plaintiff. If you’d like, I can go into detail and explain why Jones will NEVER succeed in such a claim against me; but the short answer is that my statement of OPINION about Jones being “nutty” will have to be proven false! If you know anything about logic, you know it’s virtually impossible to prove a negative. Also, my statements were made AFTER he was dismissed from his post at BYU–this puts a damper on his causation argument. And finally, there is the biggest hurdle of all: it’s called actual malice! Basically, because Jones has thrust himself into the public eye and thereby made himself a public figure (a term of art in tort), he will have to prove I made my statement with knowledge that it was false. It’s impossible my friend! Sorry.

    And also, you should take note that I have said Jones is not an evil or bad guy, he’s just a bit nuts. In my view, we’re all a bit nuts; unfortunately Jones has chosen a path in his nuttiness that I strongly disagree with. That’s all.

    Comment # 65 left by Wade on September 10th, 2006

    I am sending this a second time as it appears the first one didnt’t take.

    Wade, it was interesting to see what you spent the bulk of your reply on. Not facts about 9-11, but legal issues.

    Just so you know, I am a former navy nuclear engineer who graduated in physics from BYU. I presently teach physics and had already concurred with Dr. Jones before he ever went public.

    So.

    Are you ready to debate the FACTS? Or do we need to talk about WHAT YOU WANT TO BE TRUE?

    Darren Kamalu

    Comment # 66 left by Darren Kamalu on September 10th, 2006

    Reply to Mistaben:

    “OK, I’ll ask you. What do you suggest we should be doing besides believing what you claim to know is true? (I am not yet decided on this issue, but am curious to know what those who believe it all 100% suggest we should be doing.)”

    I don’t know 100% anything Mistaben. But I do believe that our efforts are manipulated. For I have been there and seen it.

    What YOU BELIEVE is of paramount importance to some. It doesn’t matter what is true.

    Darren Kamalu

    Comment # 67 left by Darren Kamalu on September 10th, 2006

    Darren:

    First off, I focused on legal issues because you made a false allegation against me and I wanted to correct it; I think you can understand that. :) Also, I “focused” on it because I do have credentials in tort law: I have published a thirty-page article (peer-reviewed ;)) on tort law in California.

    Actually, you may be surprised to hear this, but I’m glad you’re willing to engage us! If you don’t mind, I would appreciate it if I could set out the rules of engagement for us: lets try and stay away from personal attacks and from getting too heated etc. because I really am interested in substance; and I would like it if you could just begin by setting forth your view of the situtation. If you’d like, I will even allow you to take your time and type it up for us and I’ll post it as a separate post on this blog (under your name etc.). Then we could go from there on that thread. If you’re in, let me know; if not, we can just go from this thread. But I’d like a bit more exposure for you. Let me know.

    Comment # 68 left by Wade on September 10th, 2006

    Wade,

    Does that mean I won’t have to answer questions about why the current church leadership may not hold my opinion? And perhaps even excommunicate me without my knowledge?

    Darren Kamalu

    Comment # 69 left by Darren Kamalu on September 10th, 2006

    I will not question you about your faith etc. I’m legitimately interested in learning what you’ve got to offer. As for now, I’m off to bed; it’s way too late for me. Let me know if you’re taking the offer to post. I’ll get further information for you.

    Comment # 70 left by Wade on September 10th, 2006

    Go to sleep, give me a day or so as I am actually sick now, but could not believe what BYU did.

    Mahalo,
    Darren Kamalu

    Comment # 71 left by Darren Kamalu on September 10th, 2006

    So you want to preach tht Neocons are “saints”.Wait ffor 10 more years when documents about 9/11 will be declassified then all freaks who are favor of typical 9/11 tragic incident will hide their faces in holes.

    Comment # 72 left by Adnan Siddiqi on September 10th, 2006

    Darren,
    Sorry to hear you are sick.
    The response above was actually to something I said, not Mistaben. And I really am curious to know what you think one should do who thinks that this theory is correct. Is your intent just to get people to not be “manipulated”? What do you mean exactly by this? I will be interested to hear what you have to say.

    Comment # 73 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on September 10th, 2006

    Incidentally, I was interested in the video footage of tower 7. It sure looks like it came straight down (where it was clear that tower 2 tipped right at the weak spot where the plane hit). Today, however, my husband read a story in Deseret News. There was an explanation that there were thousands of gallons of diesel fuel in the basement of that building (emergency storage for the city, apparently). With so much going on around the area, it’s not beyond reason that somehow that fuel was set off, is it?

    Comment # 74 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on September 10th, 2006

    You’er kidding about the diesel stuff right? Do some more research before we talk about it.

    Comment # 75 left by Darren Kamalu on September 10th, 2006

    Amazing that a professor of physics should be attacked in this way. Reminds me of Gallileo and the Roman Catholic Church. The comments regarding the Bible are downright scary.

    Look, I’m not a physicist, but this much is evident–virtually indisputable. A building will fall according to known laws of gravity. Paranoia has absolutely nothing to do with it. Deviations in the rates of fall are measurable, (within .0001 of a second.) and I really don’t care how pin-headed or hateful you are inclined to be, the resulting evidence is virtually indisputable. Building #7, for example fell at at rate of .6 slower than it would have if an object was in free fall.) Scientific measurements apply insofar as explosives are concerned: if a chemical substance is in evidence; it is in evidence. Somewhere, reason must overtake this stupidity.

    Pleeez STOP fighting facts! Indeed, what is really silly is to believe that an individual reported to have been under guard in a Middle Eastern hospital directed the destruction of three buildings in NYC.

    Comment # 76 left by SC on September 10th, 2006

    SC:
    Amazing that a professor of physics should be attacked in this way.

    Ah, so if one is a “professor of physics” he should never be challenged or “attacked” for his views? That’s silly.

    Pleeez STOP fighting facts!

    I could say the same for you. There are eye witnesses who report tower 7’s substantial damage to its bottom 30 stories due to the collapse of towers one and two.

    Darren:

    When you’re ready, just e-mail me at wpoulson@gmail.com and we can discuss the logistics of your post. I look forward to it.

    Adnan:

    No, I don’t think co-called “neo-cons” are “saints”; I’m saying there is no such thing as a self-described neo-con, and that it is a pejorative term typically used by academics. And as a “freak”, in ten years if I’m proven wrong in my position, I’ll gladly admit it and go to work; you may be right that I’m a freak, but please don’t make allegations of cowardice when you know nothing of my character! Thanks buddy.

    Comment # 77 left by Wade on September 10th, 2006

    Wade:

    Its been a busy weekend, so I’m just now getting some time to read through all the comments. I installed a plugin to show which posts have the most comments (see the sidebar, under the “recent comments” section) - and yours is now the winner! :) Quite the hot topic…

    Comment # 78 left by Connor Boyack on September 10th, 2006

    Thanks for your work Connor; you’re the man! I assume you will be actively engaged in the coming post from Darren. It should be interesting.

    Comment # 79 left by Wade on September 10th, 2006

    I think we should work with one “fact” at a time; which means that we will have to decide on what the actual facts are. We will all have our own opinion on these, and given the “fact” that all of us have limited access, we will have to rely on the information available.

    Once we have established a fact, then we should explore it as best we can, each of us determining its relevance for ourselves and the possible implications. There is no doubt that all of us (including me) will have our personal sacred cows of the mind and heart start to protest that we are making hamburger of them. Sometimes we will know that up front and realize that our problem is not with the fact itself, but with our predetermined “truth.” These are moments where we can make the conscious decision to grow or not. At other times, the cows are so much a part of who we are at that moment, that all we can do is protest anything that threatens it. Those times are easy for others to see although usually not easy for us to see when we are the ones doing it. Few people (perhaps none) can see what they just don’t want to see, and the greatest lesson in life for me has been to allow them that choice. I understand the LDS heart and mind, I know that this discussion is a real threat to some deeply held beliefs. Most Utahns voted the current administration into office and continues to support them there. The implications, whether real or imagined are too much for most. It is a given then that just about every fact we will discuss has the potential to come unraveled unless we agree to disagree at times.

    SO, having said that, since this thread began with the work of Dr. Jones, lets start where he usually does - WTC7.

    I propose the following to be a fact that we should find and then discuss. If we decide it’s not a relevant fact, we should be clear about why and then move on. . .

    FACT: Larry Silverstein, owner of World Trade Center 7 gave first hand testimony about how it collapsed, he said the building was “pulled.” Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:

    “I remember getting a call from the…er…fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

    There is video footage of the interview also available on the net. So, is this something we can discuss?

    Comment # 80 left by Darren Kamalu on September 10th, 2006

    Sorry, did you want to do this in a different thread?

    Darren

    Comment # 81 left by Darren Kamalu on September 10th, 2006

    We can maintain this thread; it’s not a problem.

    The Silverstein comment is a good fact to start with. Give me some time to look into it though. I’ll get back to you for the discussion.

    Comment # 82 left by Wade on September 10th, 2006

    Okay - I said I was done with this blog…. I have changed my mind.

    No more straw men - sorry about that.

    And I’ll try to keep the prophetic comments to a minimum. I don’t claim to be a prophet.

    I like the way the thread is going - so I wanted to chime in with my analysis.

    One thing first, though….

    M&M:
    As far as your question concerning what we should do if we believe the conspiracy theory…. I believe we should do something. I don’t quite know what… but we should do something. I think maybe we’re doing it right now.

    May I make a suggestion, for the remainder of this thread as we analyze facts one by one… can we isolate our debate to the “Jones Theory of Controlled Demolition” to the “Government Theory of Progressive Collapse” or the “NIST Theory of (Whatever).”

    Then, as we analyze facts, we analyze the way in which they fit into each theory - or how the two theories explain them.

    Wade:
    Please stop calling Dr. Jones nutty (or anything else for that matter). That is definitely an ad hominem attack isn’t it? Unless you know Dr. Jones personally, you don’t know if he’s nutty. I know him personally, and I know he’s not nutty. That’s fair isn’t it?

    Comment # 83 left by Chris M on September 10th, 2006

    I’m hoping we can maybe start another thread which deals specifically with the implications of this (i.e. the Constitution, etc.). Maybe even a thread completely dedicated to the prophecy that the Constitution would “hang by a thread.” I believe that day is now (though it can obviously get worse). I’m just tossing ideas out here, but there is so much more to 9/11 than science - there are vast implications. What 9/11 has been used for (i.e. the justification for pre-emptive war, the eroding of Constitutional liberties) is what has caused me to be suspicious of it in the first place.

    You see, when it comes to 9/11 we find ourselves debating facts and theories - and as most “facts” can be disputed or twisted in some way or another, we generally do not make much ground. I think Darren’s idea for how this thread should proceed is our best effort at making ground in the scientific side of 9/11.

    Basically, the way I’ve stated it before many times, 9/11 is only evidence that the machine is “broken.” The way that we fix the machine lies in the study of the Constitution and the constructs of freedom in our country that have been given divine approval.

    What do you think Wade? Could we start a separate thread in which we examine the implications of 9/11 and the various threats to the Constitution that have crept up as a result?

    Comment # 84 left by Chris M on September 10th, 2006

    Heck, I might just start another blog entirely about the Constitution.

    Comment # 85 left by Chris M on September 10th, 2006

    Actually the diesel fuel is fairly well known, but whether that would actually bring down a building is also suspect. And what happened to the sprinkler systems?

    Again, it’s the first time in history a steel-frame building has collapsed due to fire.

    That day was also the first time in aviation history that a “black box” was not recovered from a crash site.

    Comment # 86 left by Tim J. on September 10th, 2006

    Chris:

    My characterization of Jones being “nutty” is restricted only to his conspiracy theory because it’s all I know about him; if you would read all my comments on this thread you will find that I have acknowledged he is more than likely a good guy, just nutty when it comes to his thinking about 9/11. I’ve even admitted that I’m probably nutty in some regards, and that we all are. So, to be more clear, it’s not ad hominem because I’m attacking his logical thinking about an event, not his character in general.

    As for a thread about the implications: it’s too premature in my mind if we aren’t agreed on the facts; I don’t believe it was an inside job and thus won’t consider the implications of such. It may be in order if I’m persuaded otherwise. In the mean time, feel free to voice your opinion of the implications here; but at least Darren and I (via this thread and private e-mail correspondence) have agreed to proceed cautiously and slowly in examining separate facts on this thread.

    Comment # 87 left by Wade on September 10th, 2006

    I guess you could call this my 9/11 manifesto:

    Like many of you, I watched the drama of 9/11 unfold. Never did the thought of a conspiracy come to mind, not once. However, three things did stand out in my mind.

    1. Cell phone use on Flight 93
    At the time, I was doing quite a bit of airline travel. I never had my cell phone work while in-flight. Never. I checked often to see the time as I didn’t wear a watch, and each time I did, it had “no service.” This always bothered me and stuck in the back of my mind.

    Now, I have a hard time believing that if this were a planned conspiracy, nobody would have said, “Uhh, guys, you can’t get reception on an airplane, nobody will believe it.”

    In other words, such an elaborate scheme wouldn’t have such a glaring oversight. But still…cell phones working, over a rural area no less, should not be functioning–not in 2001.

    2. The lack of footage from the Pentagon.

    When reports first came in that the Pentagon had been attacked, there were reports was that a bomb went off. Later we were told that another plane had crashed into the side of the building. My first thought upon hearing this, “Wow, I bet the footage is incredible.” This wasn’t an anxious, but rather a curious reaction.

    Well, the footage never came. Well, until fairly recently, but I still can’t make out a plane. There are also the security camera tapes that were confiscated from a gas station, a hotel, and the State of VA. Dept. of Transportation that have yet to surface.

    Now, I will admit that if the tapes were released, they wouldn’t mean much to theorists if they did, in fact, show a plane. They would just say it was remote controlled or something. But, when news came about that the footage from the Pentagon was being released, I did say to myself, “Finally, I can stop believing these crazy things!” But I was sorely disappointed.

    And 3. The incredible skill it takes to fly an airplane.

    I had a hard time believing that these guys who used the monkey bars (that video always gets me) for training would be able to fly these huge airliners. And, that they would be able to find, not just hit, but FIND their targets without any help from their instruments or from the ground. It just can’t be that easy to fly a jet!

    Not only that, but one of the flight school instructors who allegedly trained one of the hijackers in on record as saying that the guy was a terrible pilot.

    Additionally, many pilots have gone on record as saying the maneuver it took to crash into the side of the pentagon was a one in a thousand shot. It would have been difficult for a well-trained fighter pilot.

    Again, I didn’t put these things together and start believing in a great conspiracy until fairly recently, but they’ve been picking at me over the years.

    Comment # 88 left by Tim J. on September 10th, 2006

    One more thing, conspiracy or not, Flight 93 was shot down. End of story. There’s no wreckage, there were no bodies. The coroner showed up and said he never saw one drop of blood, and only spent 20 minutes at the site.

    If it was shot down by our planes to protect us, so be it. It’s then a cover-up, and I completely understand why the gov’t would want to lie about it. It would be tough to admit.

    Rumsfeld actually referred to Flight 93 as having been shot down:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0&feature=Views&page=5&t=t&f=b

    Comment # 89 left by Tim J. on September 10th, 2006

    I have no experience in physics, structural engineering, or any other related discipline. I only have my eyes.

    Watching the two towers come down seems pretty straight forward. Planes hit, buildings burn, tops collapse on bottoms. End of story. To the lay man, there doesn’t seem to be much monkey business.

    To my eye the only weirdness is building 7 (WTC #7, Building #7, whatever it is called). It just comes down like an out-of-style casino in Vegas.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7082804592890872932&q=wtc+7

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5101488991907845273&q=w