Its All in the Physics

We are supposed to take as gospel, scientific theories which are completely unreproducable (ie. evolution).

But along comes a BYU physics professor, who I'm sure, is going to undergo character assassination the likes of which we haven't seen for a long time. His "crime"? He dare question the "Official Story".

The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.
Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.

Have you ever thought something in passing, only to see the same theory show up in an article somewhere?
This article reminded me of some things I thought on 9/11:
1) Gee, that building going down looks just like when they demolish one intentionally.
2) If they were trying to do maximum damage by crashing planes into a building, why didn't they try to hit a lower floor? They could have gone into a steep dive, instead of flying level.

In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:

• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."

• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.

• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.

• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.

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.
Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.

Thanks, Prof. Jones for having the guts to put out in the public forum what many have been thinking.
The book sounds like a worth while read, but I'm afraid the scientific investigation will go no where.
After all, we can't go around questioning the god of government.

Intellectual Voters

I was surfing around reviewing the results of some of yesterdays elections/votes when I came across this beauty.
Seems the geniuses of Sarasota County, Florida, voted to increase their own taxes and enable the county government to go $250 million deeper into debt (by a margin of 4 -1!), all for the sake of a few parks!

Here's the punchline: They asked one of the supporters of this proposal why he voted for it.

William Montavon and Cheryl Wilson, who cast their votes at the Municipal Auditorium, pointed to the condos going up just across the street from the voting precinct as reason enough to support continuing the tax.

"I voted yes for both points because we need parks," Montavon said. "Just look around you. Sarasota used to be a great town, but now if you're not a developer or making more than $50,000 it sucks for you because you can't afford to live here."

By following his train of thought (however derailed it may be), the only conclusion I can come to is that he 1) thinks housing will become more affordable if he has less money in his pocket, or 2) he is planning on moving into one of these new parks.

There should be a test to demonstrate understanding of the Constitution and our founding principles before someone is issued a Voter ID card. Or at least basic math skills.

Dale Carnegie Wanted

You allege to be a spokesman for what is arguably the most persecuted group of people in history (at least in terms of duration of persecution).
For 4000 years, countries have hated you.
Armies have tried to wipe you out of existence.
Current regimes want to see your country eliminated from the face of the globe.

So what do you choose as your next strategy?
Attack the group that is most defensive of you!

Institutionalized Christianity in the U.S. has grown so extremist that it poses a tangible danger to the principle of separation of church and state and threatens to undermine the religious tolerance that characterizes the country, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, warned in his address to the League's national commission, meeting in New York City over the weekend.

First off, Abe, there is NO SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE in the Constitution. Read it and let me know where you find it.

Secondly, Christianity is a product of Judaism (Remember that Carpenter from Nazareth, Jesus? He was Jewish, as were ALL the writers of the New Testament). If the roots are the same, how can the goals be that far apart? Unless, of course, you have totally abandoned your Jewish heritage and are just another mouthpiece for the Secular Humanist movement.

Judgmant Day is going to be SOoo much fun!

Reading, 'riting and WHAT??

If you ever doubted that your childern were considered property of the State, and on loan to you until the state deemed it necessary to take possession, read this.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday against parents who sued their local school district after their elementary-age children were given a sexually charged survey, saying there is "no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."

The three-judge panel of the full court further ruled that parents "have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

The lower court had ruled against the parents, saying the right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs" does not rise to the level of a fundamental right protected by substantive due process.

Translated: Your control over the upbringing of your childern is granted as long as it is consistent with the goals and desires of the State.

RUN, do not walk, to your local public school and withdraw your childern.

Any parent who leaves their child in the State-sponsered Indoctrination System, is no better than a child abuser.

Is it any wonder why home schooling is growing by leaps and bounds?