Heidegger

On 08/06/2006, at 5:03 AM, That Pete wrote:

> — Malcolm Riddoch wrote:
>> and also the essays of BYU Physics Professor Steven E. Jones:
>>
>> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/ener…
>
> I read this. He’s a physicist who has done research in cold fusion
> and also claims Jesus visited America. The structural engineers
> at his own university dispute his analysis.

Good start there, a nice #1. Denigrate and dismiss. The cold fusion
work is however the non-controversial work in spontaneous neutron
emission rather than the popularized cold fusion energy hoax. The
former was favourably peer reviewed and has possible industrial
applications. I also enjoyed his Mormon hypothesis and survey of
Mayan archaeological evidence. Are you suggesting this paper is
relevant to or calls into question his physics research?

The dispute at BYU you mentioned has apparently been retracted by the
Dean as none of the engineers in question came up with any detailed
critique of the essay. You can read a summary of the academic scandal
in the Wikipedia entry:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._J…

Professor Steven E. Jones does seem to be a respected research
physicist so you might need to dig a fair bit deeper for some good
sticky mud. I’d certainly be interested in any dirt you can find.

> What in his paper convinces you the twin towers were brought down
> by a controlled explosions?

We could start with the 47 story WTC7 near free fall symmetrical
collapse into its own footprint complete with explosive squibs, or
the pools of molten steel reported in all three basements that
apparently remained molten for weeks after the collapse, along with
the evidence of the sulfidation of steel suggesting a thermite
reaction, or the pyroclastic flows that start at the top of the
towers, or the early drop of the north tower antenna implying a
catastrophic failure of the core brought the tower down. I think FEMA
have brought out another report suggesting the antenna drop is merely
an apparent drop due to the camera angle and perspective so you might
want to pick on that one. Do you want to bring up the now discounted
pancake theory at some point?

More to the point, since you’ve actually read this paper, what claims
would you like to dispute? Be advised that this paper is a
preliminary report on the inadequacies of the NIST and FEMA reports
and calls for further research into the hypothesis that all three
collapses could only have been caused by controlled demolition. It
goes without saying that this hypothesis has never been seriously
considered in any government research and that the overriding
conclusion that the NIST and FEMA analyses work towards without
questioning is the assumption that the towers and WTC7 somehow
spontaneously collapsed. FEMA and NIST have as yet been unable to
provide a sufficient model for the spontaneous collapse theory but
maybe you can find something they missed in the Popular Mechanics
‘debunking’.

Cheers,

Malcolm

**********************************
Dr Malcolm Riddoch
An-archos community networks
Web http://an-archos.com

Posted on Wednesday, June 7th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback
Tags: 911 demolition»