Question: were the London/Madrid bombings part of this too? Is Barbara Boxer in on it? You know that she’s owns Haliburton stock. How about the Jews? I heard that they were all cleared out of the towers right before the planes hit? Did Cheney call the Isralis who warned their people? I guess we can’t trust them to keep a secret.

You guys must love the “Da Vinci Code” and I have to admit I liked it to. The difference is that I see it as fiction. You no doubt see it as “food for thought.”

Regardless, thanks for keeping the world from being a boring place. Now where is my aluminum foil hat?

I think you’ve got it backwards. The conventional wisdom to which I refer and to which Professor Jones issued his challenge is the one that states the buildings’ collapse was due entirely to structural and thermal damage associated with the aircraft impacts. Have you read the paper? The concerns raised and questions asked are far from “crackpot theories.”

You did indeed say that “Then he looked at the way the buildings fell down.” But what did you write shortly thereafter?

Of course anyone who knows anything about science knows that the best work comes from people with near-death experiences. Evidently, our creator lets people who are dying in on the universe’s big secrets. Sometimes these people don’t die and they end up possessing all kinds of cool stuff–if we’d just listen to them! Fortunately, Steve Jones has done that.

Snark like that is designed to demonstrate base contempt, distract attention, or both. The search for truth needs none of that.

His credibility would be better if he hadn’t been involved in the cold fusion story and his chosen line of professional inquiry were, say, civil engineering or commercial demolition. However, that still doesn’t address the substance of his comments in the paper. Again, have you read it? He knows about the Popular Mechanics article, saying it “focuses on poorly-supported claims” and then pointing to more than three “serious replies” to it. Unless you are referring to a different article (your link doesn’t work)?

Some theories are prima facie baseless. This one deserves attention, if for no other reason than to help him get the National Institute of Standards and Technology to release thousands of pictures and hundreds of hours of video to the public.

Second, I should have included a link to his original report. I’ll add the link.

Third, my post included “Then he looked at the way the buildings fell down.” Is this a misrepresentation of his work? We both agree that the origination of his interest in this subject came from a woman with a near-death experience that somehow possessed this knowledge. After hearing this, he went off and studied the way the buildings fall–interesting a subject not in his area of expertise.

Since you don’t like our take, I will also add a thorough debunking by Popular Mechanics. link

How does he know this? He talked to a woman who had a near-death experience.

This is, to put it politely, a gross misinterpretation of Professor Jones’ paper, a draft of which you can read here. The Deseret News article you pull that from doesn’t remotely give that impression you describe. Quote:

Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that “if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you,” Jones remembers, at which point “everyone around me started applauding.”

Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September.

But I suppose slandering a stranger who disagrees with the conventional wisdom is more important than paying attention to facts.

thankyathankyaverymuch,

E. Presley, readin’ a National Enquirer attta WhattaBurger