Got physicists, need engineers

See http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/


If you are an honest skeptic*, with a technical background, please consider joining. Most definitely there is a need for civil and construction engineers. Note that one need not be an academic; associate membership is for these individuals.



scholars for 911 truth with physics relevant backgrounds:
===========================================

Frank Carmen (AM)

Physics Ph.D., BYU



Scott Daniel (FM)

Physics and Astronomy, BYU



Jeffrey Farrer (FM)

Physics/ Materials Science, BYU



Eric Hermanson (AM)

Engineering Physics, Nuclear Engineering, Software Architect



Steven Jones (FM)

Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum



Peter Meyer (AM)

Computational physics, computer programmer, software developer, creator of the Serendipity web site (www.serendipity.li) and of the Hermetic Systems web site (www.hermetic.ch)

* By "honest skeptic", I mean skeptical of the Controlled Demolition hypothesis advanced by Professor Jones, as well as other non-US governmental conspiracy theories. Of course, scholars and non-academic technical types who consider themselves completely unbiassed are also invited to contribute.

Is Dr. Steven Jones what you would consider an "honest skeptic"?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Hmmm . . . if they have relevant backgrounds and sound ideas, why don't they submit papers to academic journals?

__________________
I believe in karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long, and assume they deserve it.

They formed their own little club. Isn't that cute?

That list is a real service for highschoolers considering which college to attend.

Avoid these departments:

Physics, BYU
Physics and Astronomy, BYU
Physics/Materials Science, BYU
Physics, Brigham Young University

Hmm, I'm beginning to see a pattern. Maybe it's just safest to avoid BYU altogether.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I noticed Eric Hufschmid on the list of members. Is he the apollo hoax Eric Hufschmid?

But do they want The Truth, or only Their Truth. I suspect the second as most CT's only put their fingers in the their ears and sing, "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you," when confrounted with the real facts and sciences.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

* By "honest skeptic", I mean skeptical of the Controlled Demolition hypothesis advanced by Professor Jones,

[innocent puzzlement]He's skeptical of his own hypothesis?[/innocent puzzlement]

Hey, I'm skeptical of it too! Maybe I should join and help Prof. Jones put himself out of business!

Is he the apollo hoax Eric Hufschmid?

Yep, the very one that Penn and Teller verbally eviscerated on their show. And the one who wouldn't talk about his Apollo hoax theory here because we were all apparently too dumb.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

GOT TRUTH, NEED BODYGUARDS?

who ya gonna call? see list above.

So since I am pretty solidly convinced of the "theory" that a group of terrorists hijacked some commercial airplanes and flew them into the WTC and Pentagon, that I'm probably not considered unbiased? Just checking.

Jim.

__________________
Jim Scotti
http://pixofmyuniverse.blogspot.com
http://apollogeek.blogspot.com

Must stop all such groups... can not allow French involvment to get uncovered!!!

__________________
So descredo no incrivel

Beauty I’d always missed
With these eyes before,
Just what the truth is
I can’t say anymore.

-- Moody Blues

I knew it! Jean Reno did it!

__________________
Join the Illuminati

The accepted term for that is THE TRVTH*!


*(As seen previously on alt.fan.art-bell)

This paper (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html), by Steven Jones, has been peer refereed and is scheduled for publication in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, forthcoming in Spring 2006.

I guess though that you won't be impressed. Therefore I challenge you: name me a scientific journal in which publication of the above paper would impress you, and which, given its editorial policy (on the types of topics published on, not soundness of claims), would be interested in it.

Last point: peer refereeing does often go wrong. Have we all forgotten the case of Jan Hendrik Schon? http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20...ics/index.html
If peer refereeing can err one direction, it can also err in the opposite direction.

One Very Last Point: "how cute... they've formed their own little club"
The author of this remark shows his ignorance of the already widespread practice, in 'mainstream' science, of peer refereeing communities.
ST9/11 is nothing else.

Why don't you all engage with the content of the papers on the www.st911.org site, instead of these ridiculous ad hominem remarks?

If that's what you consider an "ad hominem attack" then you need to grow a thicker skin. What journal shuold they be in? How about Fire Engineering Magazine or the journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers, to name just two, not some political economy rag. Saying "well peer review sometimes goes wrong" and trying to imply that this is the case here proves absolutely nothing. It is simply begging the question. At least one of the papers was discussed by an engineer here and found seriously wanting. Most of it appears to be the same old nonsense that's been debunked years ago, just repackaged.

These papers reveal far more about their authors than they do about events on 9-11.

__________________
I believe in karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long, and assume they deserve it.

I'm debating some guy over at GLP about the molten metal and I need a bit of help.

Take a look at this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...aplanet+9%2F11

Anyone who know me, knows me as a skeptic, but I can't seem to dig up anything on this point. There seems to be a bright yellow colored substance pouring from the gash in the tower. It's not steel, I know that. But the bright yellow color (if it is metal) indicates a REALLY high temperature.

And I can't think of anything it appears to be BUT metal. I suggested it was airplane aluminum, which melts at a lower temperature. But what about the color?

Help!

__________________
My son is my universe.

I guess if you consider that as truth, you'd be afraid to look at this site.
http://www.911myths.com/

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

Could it be aluminum from some furniture? That's normally a lower grade of metal and may have a lower melting point too. Just a thought.

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

...has been peer refereed and is scheduled for publication in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, forthcoming in Spring 2006.

If Stephen Jones is a physicist pretending to be a structural engineer and Paul Zarkambka is an economist, how on earth would that constitute a "peer" review? Peer review is conducted by people knowledgeable in the field in which the paper was written. Did the peer review board for Mr. Zarkamba's book on economics empanel any licensed structural or forensic engineers? If not then Mr. Jones' work was not reviewed by peers.

Mr. Jones' university has released a statement disavowing responsibility for his statements. The engineering department of the same university has released a separate statement repudiating Jones' research. Does this sound like someone who enjoys good stature among the relevant peers?

Therefore I challenge you: name me a scientific journal in which publication of the above paper would impress you...

I suggest Engineering News-Record (United States) and The Structural Engineer (U.K.). Both of these journals routinely publish articles pertaining to the failure of structures and the methods for investigating their causes. They are read by some of the most eminent engineers in the world.

Last point: peer refereeing does often go wrong.

As do medicine, car repair, and pet grooming. Does that mean we should forego these practices altoghether when the need arises? A validation process is not discarded simply because it is not infallible. If it is beneficial far more often than it is detrimental -- as is the case with academic peer review -- then its use is preferred over inaction.

And this point is distractionary; the question is not whether peer review has gone wrong either way in Jones' case but why Jones has eschewed peer review in favor of the lone ranger approach.

Why don't you all engage with the content of the papers on the www.st911.org site, instead of these ridiculous ad hominem remarks?

First because the papers are being written from a purported position of expertise. Therefore we judge them according to the criteria for expert witnesses: are they really experts, speaking as experts, concurring with other experts? If the answer is no, then the content is largely irrelevant. It is not ad hominem to examine the expertise of those who claim to be experts in order to determine whether their statements bear further scrutiny.

If a car mechanic writes a paper on dentistry, there may be some value in picking apart its (likely many) factual flaws. But the mechanic bears the burden of proof to show he is knowledgeable in dentistry before the content is putatively accepted.

Second because Jones merely repeats other conspiracy theories (e.g., Hufschmid, Rose) and does no further research on them. Since those underlying theories have been studied ad nauseam for years and rejected purely on factual grounds, there is little further need to reject them again simply because they are repeated. Jones brings little that is new to the table; he merely repeats popular theories under color of academic authority.

Further, Fetzer et al. don't have a good track record of responding to content. I have provided rebuttal material from my professional area of expertise on other questions Fetzer has raised on the many other conspiracy theories he has undertaken to endorse. His response was not to defend his content, but rather to attack my standing to question him because I lacked the academic credentials (i.e., a PhD) that he deemed important. It did not matter to him that his PhD was in a field utterly unrelated (philosophy) to what he was discussing (aircraft design and construction) and that I had years of qualified professional experience in that field.

Regardless of what you may think, Fetzer, Jones and company have the burden of proof to show that their content -- framed as expert analysis -- really is all that. By claiming that their papers represent opinions made from relevant expertise, they have invoked a commensurate method of examination and refutation which, unfortunately, does not first deal with content.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

How are you sure it is pouring (as in a liquid) and not piece after piece falling? If a pile of burning rubble tips over and it falls out of the window (like you would turn over a burning bonfire of sorts), would it look different than what is seen on the video?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Yes, I've completely foregone pet grooming after that mohawk on the cat.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Now that you mention it, it reminds me of the scene where they're pouring fire at Yosemite (I think the movie was "The Caine Mutiny") and say "Let the fire fall". I'm sure they weren't using metal there.

Edit: Spelling of Caine

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

Well my cat was pretty pleased with her Mohawk, OTOH I think FEA out to banned because it has gone wrong 0.000000000001% of the time according to my SWAG statistics.....

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Hot embers falling from burning wooden furnature would look pretty much just like that video. If you notice, the outer columns are hanging outwards and holding up something glowing hot, with glowing bits falling from it. Looks to me like a burning pile of office furnature with hot embers falling from it. If it was liquid metal where's it coming from? The columns clearly aren't melting and behind them is just office space.

Although I too am not sure that is anything actually molten, even if it was, to me any number of things were in those buildings that could melt without claiming that the actual structural steel was melting. I'm confused as to what exactly that is supposed to prove.

Above all, that video certainly should stifle anybody saying that there really wasn't an inferno. It's funny how each different flavor of the CT seems to contradict the other.

I state with certainty that the glowing yellow material spilling from the building in that video isn't steel. If it isn't liquid (and I'll have to watch it again more closely), then can non-metal solids reach that temperature and spill like that?

The CTer's are going to be convinced it is liquid metal of some kind. Even if it were lower-grade metal, lower melting point, it would have to be hotter than a jet fuel fire to glow like that. I'm arguing from their point of view at the moment.

SO! How would one show evidence that it isn't liquid metal, but glowing embers of solid non-metal matter?

I'll look at it again and brainstorm.

Faultline

__________________
My son is my universe.

Simple wood burning would have that colour .

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Could it be molten plastic? Perhaps a couple large copiers, printers, computers, etc pushed up against the opening?

I just visited the st911.org site and began with the "why doubt the official story" tab. It took about 30 seconds to recognize rather "poor" evidence: "eyewitnesses reported...", "some firemen felt it sounded like...", "USA Today reported...", and so on...
After this brief glimpse, I see no reason to dive deeper into what most certainly appears to be just another CT site. I saw nothing credible in the brief visit, instead quite the opposite.
Dave