Beofre accepting this article or its findings at face value, I would recommend you learn a little more about Mr. Jones and BYU. Note his extensive (or lack thereof) qualifications in essential fields such as buidlings structures and explosive demolition.

 http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/bergeson/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm

Okay, some obvious queries about the quoted article:

1. "A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of most or all of the support columns.". Really? I don't know enough about structural mechanics to say its so clearly evident. Has Mr. Jones got structural calculations? Fire modelling data?

2. The second law of thermodynamics states that all work processes tend towards a greater entropy (disorder/lower energy density) over time (to quote Wikipedia). So how is that in anyway relevant to assymetrical collapse - or otherwise - of the tower?

3. Academic papers, in my experience, tend to get small detail right. Its stated that Thermite and other explosives give the required temperatures of 5000F sufficient to evaporate (interestingly terminology) steel. But Thermite doesn't go above 4500F even with Iron Oxide. And it wouldn't need to "evaporate" the steel - the explosive blasts will cause shear forces sufficient to fracture the steelwork.

4. Even if we accept that steel wouldn't melt other than using explosive, Jones fails massively to explain how the heck it stayed molten for so long afterwords that it was observed! Call me picky, but surely the second law of thermodiamics (the real one, not Jones') means that it would tend to cool pretty damned quickly? Indeed do we have any solid proof that there was molten steel?

5. "In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds:" Yeah, because the air wouldn't start to move outwards until after it reached the floor below? Doh! It starts moving the moment the floor starts moving - you see the puff when pressure is sufficient to blow out the glazing.

6. There's a 911 conspiracy web site quoted as a source. Academics just don't do that kind of thing - least not at real universities.

7. "Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags". Really? They've kept remarkably quiet about it. Lets have some links.

8. "designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft". No problem. Show us the size of airliner it was designed to withstand and assumptions about fuel load. Were they comparable? Who know because unlike most academics Jones doesn't bother to flesh out such critical information.

9. If steel isn't susceptible to fires, why do we bother with fire protection in such buildings?

10. "How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis" Yeah, except for the fact that the explosives would have to be on every single floor and timed to perfection. Wonder how they got all that TNT it with no-one noticing, eh?

This paper is poorly written and if genuine falls well short of normal academic standards. It should be treated with considerable caution, in my view.

 http://www.rense.com/general68/demo.htm

The Rense article is deliberately misleading, as is Mr. Smith's reference to it.

What it actually says is:

"Jones told the Arctic Beacon Saturday in a telephone conversation from Provo, Utah, he first presented his explosive conclusions at Brigham Young University (BYU) on September 22, to 60 people from the BYU and Utah Valley State College faculties, including professors of Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Geology, Mathematics and Psychology."


So the source for the widespread support is, in fact, Jones - hey, impartial or what - and the 60 people are at his own Uni and the one down the road. I love the fact geologists and psychologists were on team, because (like) they know sooooo much about building structures.

That isn't widespread support from the academic community, mate. Lets see proper universities, academics, and construction professionals run with it.

"After presently scientific arguments in favor of the controlled demolition theory, Jones said everyone in attendance from all backgrounds, conservative and liberal, were in total agreement further investigation was needed."

Futher investigation needed is hardly "Widespread academic support".

Its not Jones who lacks the credibilty, its persons who use names like paranoid pete, whose identity is completlty unknown, even if their agenda is clear.

Tell is who u really are Pete, and your qualifications to criticise Jones..

1. "A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of most or all of the support columns.". Really? I don't know enough about structural mechanics to say its so clearly evident. Has Mr. Jones got structural calculations? Fire modelling data?

Come now, Skippy...of course it's so clearly evident; otherwise the falling Towers would take the path of least resistance and topple like trees. The core of the matter :  http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/samples/page29.html


2. The second law of thermodynamics states that all work processes tend towards a greater entropy (disorder/lower energy density) over time (to quote Wikipedia). So how is that in anyway relevant to assymetrical collapse - or otherwise - of the tower?

Now, now, Skippy ... The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."

Isolated hydrocarbon (eg. kerosene or office-furniture) fires - max 800C without pre-heating or pressurisation of air - cannot possibly give simultaneous symetrical heating to the 90,000 tons of structural steel in one Twin Tower or even on one floor - so no symetrical collapse. At 800C the steel columns would glow - red hot. Did we see that, Skippy? No Sir:
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

3. Academic papers, in my experience, tend to get small detail right. Its stated that Thermite and other explosives give the required temperatures of 5000F sufficient to evaporate (interestingly terminology) steel. But Thermite doesn't go above 4500F even with Iron Oxide. And it wouldn't need to "evaporate" the steel - the explosive blasts will cause shear forces sufficient to fracture the steelwork.

Skippy, Skippy, Skippy, it says: " A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated”. Evaporate = boil. Boiling point of steel: above 4000F depending on the grade. Thermite with iron oxide can and often does reach temperatures above 4500F. Molten metal was found in the basements of the three Towers. And you think kerosene fuelled fires (max 800C/1500F in open air) would do the trick, Skippy?  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm



4. Even if we accept that steel wouldn't melt other than using explosive, Jones fails massively to explain how the heck it stayed molten for so long afterwords that it was observed! Call me picky, but surely the second law of thermodiamics (the real one, not Jones') means that it would tend to cool pretty damned quickly? Indeed do we have any solid proof that there was molten steel?

Picky Skippy, ever heard of an oxy-acetylene torch or an arc lamp? Give Jones a chance - the paper is only a draft. There are many interpretations of the 2nd law, you quoted just one. There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer, ‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6)



5. "In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds:" Yeah, because the air wouldn't start to move outwards until after it reached the floor below? Doh! It starts moving the moment the floor starts moving - you see the puff when pressure is sufficient to blow out the glazing.

What on earth are youse on about, Skip? The squibs are seen well below any collapsing (more like pulverised - in midair - concrete and cross-trussed steel) floors : "The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos." Naughty, naughty Skippy.



6. There's a 911 conspiracy web site quoted as a source. Academics just don't do that kind of thing - least not at real universities.

Surely you jest, Skippy. He is pointing you to VIDEOS on the site, where you can make up your own mind, conspiracy or not. Here's a REAL conspiracy site: www.gov.uk. Real Universities? Are you saying that BYU isn't a real University?



7. "Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags". Really? They've kept remarkably quiet about it. Lets have some links.

And why do you think they have kept quiet, Skippy?. Ever heard of Dr. David Kelly?


8. "designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft". No problem. Show us the size of airliner it was designed to withstand and assumptions about fuel load. Were they comparable? Who know because unlike most academics Jones doesn't bother to flesh out such critical information.

Each Twin Tower was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 which is, when fully laden with fuel, as near-as-dammit the mass/momentum of a Boeing 767. Give Jonesy a chance, Skip. You want him to prove everything in a draft paper?


9. If steel isn't susceptible to fires, why do we bother with fire protection in such buildings?

That should be obvious to even you, Skippy. Steel is not susceptible to any amount of kerosene, diesel, natural gas or office furniture fuelled fires, burning for any length of time you want, so there is no need for fire protection - horses for courses, Skip.


10. "How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis" Yeah, except for the fact that the explosives would have to be on every single floor and timed to perfection. Wonder how they got all that TNT it with no-one noticing, eh?

Every single floor? Not so, Skippy. Every 30ft or so attached to the hidden steel core columns is enough. 30ft lengths of core columns were found which were just right for Controlled Demolition Inc. to cart away in their lorries. Controlled demolitions ARE timed to perfection as most have been computer-controlled for decades. Holy Toledo!, TNT now? Who owned the three buildings and who was on the board in charge of all WTC security? Easy to find out, Skip. No-one noticing? What, you expect them to turn up in overalls with "Demolitions R Us" on their backs?. Very disingenious, Skippy, if I may say so.


This paper is poorly written and if genuine falls well short of normal academic standards. It should be treated with considerable caution.

What qualifications do you have, Skip?

Yeah I thought that all that numbered stuff was a bit too much of a long haul for Paranoid Pete.
But it does prove that he/she can cut and paste to add to his noted one liners.

It's sad that jerks like Pete are allowed to put their grubby mits on articles that really need to be taken much more seriously.

Well Brian I don't know about ol' PP, but I'm an ARB registered architect with 15 years post-qualification experience in a pertinent range of issues including fire safety and steel structures. Members of my team are currently grafting away on 38 storey tower block and I've worked with some of the foremost engineers including ARUP.

What are YOUR qualifiations? Or more pertinently, old Alas Smith and Jones'?

First a link to a previous thread that's relevant to this:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326074.html

Let me pose one of the same points I made there. If you were seriously ill, would you trust the advice of a surgeon or some bloke at the pub who watches Casualty on the TV? You'd go with the surgeon, because he's studied medicine for years and knows what he's talking about. It would be ludicrous to suggest that anyone could learn about medicine without such an education.

But ol' Alas' arguments and what we see on 9/11 conspiracist sites are views informed by (at best) an incomplete understanding of the actual issues. When those of us who understand the building issues look at the arguments, they hold little or no water. The melting steel one is a classic example.

The fact remains that there has been no credible dissent from building and fire experts regarding the causes of the collapse. A conspiracy of such magnitude is clearly untenable, as is the suggestion that tens of thousands of us worldwide have been duped. It doesn't help when our physicist friend Mr Jones - who is singularly unqualified to comment with any confidence in the field - drafts such ill informed papers as this and then conspiracists promptly parade it as some mass academic support.

You really must try harder. You write complete gobbledygook. How much is the spook-agency paying you? Too much, mate, given the tripe you've expounded on this thread and elsewhere. You would think they could find some other oink with at least a basic knowledge of physics or even common-sense, now wouldn't you? Recruiting numbers must be down. Or maybe Trolls ain't what they used to be. I used to enjoy pulverising them to microscopic particles just like the Twin Towers' concrete. But shooting fish in a barrel becomes tedious after a while. So, Arse, I bid you fare-bad; and be sure to keep up the bad work !

It must be a real shitty job though, eh? All that twisting and mangling of proven facts; all that continual lying; all that bullshit. And for what, Arse? Surely it must slowly drain your soul. But don't worry - when the shit hits the fan, you'll be the first outta Dodge, right? Either that, or your ass will be grass. Your masters will see to that. Yessireebob.

Get a life, Arse.

There are literally millions of qualified architects, surveyors and structural engineers in the world. A good number will have studied the WTC collapse from professional interest. Who knows - perhaps it is now part of university structures courses?

Do we find these people objecting?

No. We find loonies and particle physicists.

Speaks for itself, really.

Seems to me that Architect posted a perfectly civil response to a challenge about having proper qualifications to make assessments re: the cause of collapsing buildings. Smith and Jones then starts barking on about 'trolling' yet was far more abusive than the previous poster, and, of course, threw in the usual knee-jerk response to anyone who happens to challenge any bizarre theory posted up on this site - that they are obviously a 'spook'. What precisely are your qualifications in the area of building design/construction or physics then, Smith and Jones? I'm guessing somewhere in the region of 'bugger all'.

Alas, you going to actually answer any of the points I make or just bandy insults around?

I've argued the case with Architect before so I don't think there's much point going over the specifics of 9/11 again.

I think there are two major impediments to discovering the truth about 9/11.

The first is that the US government has done their very best to quickly remove the vast majority of the evidence. That evidence has not been scrutinised even by the US authorities, let alone by anyone independent. Nor will it ever be, unfortunately.

The second is the composition of the "9/11 truth movement" itself. This has the characteristics not so much of an open-minded scientific or legal enquiry, but of a cult with very definite politically-motivated conclusions based on an understandable lack of real evidence or inquiry. For most, this "truth" is not something to be discovered but an article of faith to be evangelised.

I have said before that I know people who are qualified to speak on this subject that have serious reservations about the official story. But they are just that - reservations. Without access to the evidence, they aren't going to put their reputations on the line to start a debate that can only honestly conclude with them admitting that they aren't in a position to make any definite judgments. The behaviour and affiliations of most 9/11 truthers makes suitably-qualified people less likely to want to take that risk than they would otherwise.

Professor Jones listing "evidence for Christ's visit in America" as one of his research interests really doesn't help his cause, and as Architect rightly points out, his other scientific endeavours don't have a direct bearing on the matter in hand.

BYU is indeed a "real" university, but not a particularly good one, ranking 71st in the US according to US News.

 http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3670_brief.php

To Architect, my qualifications are not important, as im posting an article. Your are not very relevant to the issue either, as they have nothing to do with civil disasters.

Dragging in Prof Jones other interests(he does live in Utah) is also irrelevant, other than as an attempt at character assassination.
Jones des not bring Jesus into his anaslysis, nor should people,on this board.

Brian,

I think you need to compare and contrast these two quotes of yours:

"Tell is who u really are Pete, and your qualifications to criticise Jones"

"my qualifications are not important, as im posting an article. Your are not very relevant to the issue either, as they have nothing to do with civil disaster"

PP may not have responded to the qualifications challenge you set, but I did. I AM qualified to talk about building structures and fire performance. Neither you or ol' Mr. Jones are, as far as I can see. And just how can you claim that such qualifications are NOT relevant to considering the cause of catastrophic structural failure in a building where fire and explosion have occured?

Zorro makes a good point. If there was a conspiracy (in the perjorative sense) and cover-up then poorly reasoned conspiracist polemic does nothing to advance your (or Mr. Jones') argument.