|
Post by frenat on Jul 11, 2006 21:19:07 GMT -4
Very, very obviously a chunk of concrete.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 12, 2006 17:01:01 GMT -4
Very, very extremely obviously a chunk of concrete. Jones is outside his field and out of his depth. (Of course, given his enthusiasm for cold fusion, he has some problems inside his field as well.)
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 12, 2006 17:03:42 GMT -4
(Of course, given his enthusiasm for cold fusion, he has some problems inside his field as well. Hmmm, I though he was out-standing is his field. Literally.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 12, 2006 18:40:45 GMT -4
(Of course, given his enthusiasm for cold fusion, he has some problems inside his field as well. Hmmm, I though he was out-standing is his field. Literally. He apparently stands alone in BYU concerning his opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 12, 2006 19:11:58 GMT -4
(Of course, given his enthusiasm for cold fusion, he has some problems inside his field as well. Hmmm, I though he was out-standing is his field. Literally. Don't have a cow, man!
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 12, 2006 20:47:26 GMT -4
Don't have a cow, man
Despite the fact I live in Texas I actually don’t have a cow and I feel quite deprived, thanks for asking. ;D
However I am quite sure that the field Dr. Jones is standing in is filled with the bovine evidence of his conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by bpd1069 on Jul 14, 2006 12:23:21 GMT -4
the Obvious concrete slab is a "drillage". These were the steel beams that were layed ontop of concrete footings (reinforced with rebar) attached to the bedrock, then the support columns were mounted to these feet. check out the Documentry made by the NY Port Authority "Building the WTC" made during the construction of the towers... go to about 6:00 in and they start to talk about the slurry walls, then move to the bedrock foundation support system. After viewing that information, you can see why Prof. Jones pointed out the significance of those deformed mass of concrete/rebar/melted steel.... video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3135892053682639810&q=building+the+towers
|
|
|
Post by bpd1069 on Jul 14, 2006 12:24:30 GMT -4
do you guys just <self congradulate> or do you actually look at the facts?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 14, 2006 12:50:27 GMT -4
Language like that is not appreciated here, bpd1069. Be polite or leave.
|
|
|
Post by bpd1069 on Jul 14, 2006 12:57:57 GMT -4
Mod: changed and noted... A bit disconcerting that someone as accomplished as Prof. Jones is cast as incompetent when his collective body of work shows progress to expand our scientific knowledge. He is known for the phrase "cold fusion" but specifically to muon catalyized fusion, not the "Cold Fusion" table top experiments that were shown to be unreproducable over a decade ago. Completely different labs/researchers. Infact Jones was as a US Gov't Lab I believe as a chief investigator. The information is laid out infront of you, but instead of understanding what is beyond you(collective), you (collectice) resort to ad hominem attacks... so sad.
Steve Jones of Brigham Young University--originally a rival of Fleischmann and Pons who made somewhat different claims for neutron production--is now a strong opponent of cold fusion and indeed has done experiments showing that in Fleischmann and Pons's open cells, the hydrogen and oxygen gases can mingle and recombine giving out apparent excess heat. If this potential for recombination is blocked, there is no excess heat. source: www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=0007CC4D-394F-1C71-84A9809EC588EF21&pageNumber=4&catID=3
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jul 14, 2006 13:02:42 GMT -4
Mod: changed and noted... A bit disconcerting that someone as accomplished as Prof. Jones is cast as incompetent when his collective body of work shows progress to expand our scientific knowledge. He is known for the phrase "cold fusion" but specifically to muon catalyized fusion, not the "Cold Fusion" table top experiments that were shown to be unreproducable over a decade ago. Completely different labs/researchers. Infact Jones was as a US Gov't Lab I believe as a chief investigator. The information is laid out infront of you, but instead of understanding what is beyond you(collective), you (collectice) resort to ad hominem attacks... Actually, IMO he could be Mother Teresa for all I care; his theory about how the WTC fell is garbage, and is literally laughed at by competent structural engineers.
|
|
|
Post by bpd1069 on Jul 14, 2006 13:07:03 GMT -4
Please provide some names I would like to talk to them...
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jul 14, 2006 13:09:56 GMT -4
Please provide some names I would like to talk to them... First off, if you haven't yet, please read this entire thread and tell us just how the folks here who have looked at Jones' theory in detail and disagree are wrong. And, since of course the onus is on you to prove this extraordinary theory, perhaps you could find a qualified structural engineer who thinks the vast majority of his peers are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bpd1069 on Jul 14, 2006 13:16:19 GMT -4
Dr. Judy Wood has numerous degrees in mechanical engineering, mechanics, experimental mechanics. Here is a link to her paper that was presented at 2006 Society for Experimental Mechanics Annual Conference... janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.htmlHer paper simplicity is its strength. She shows the collapse times alone are impossible. She supports Dr. Jones' work... And just to clear up some issues, Prof. Jones is focused on evidence of Thermate, that falls in his realm of expertise. That is his theory, the implications of Why and who are not part of his theory AT ALL. So if one is to attack his theory you must limit the attack to the paper itself. He has hard evidence, which tests were duplicated by atleast 2 other universities of sulfur in the slag material. The fact it was present may not seem important but you must realize for it to be IN the material the material would have to be in a molten state. This is in line with thermate, also evidence of maganese aswell (also used as an accelerant)
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Jul 14, 2006 14:10:46 GMT -4
Her billiard ball analogy is laughably wrong. She has each ball start from 0 speed and accelerate as if in freefall, completely ignoring all of the momentum transferred to it as the previous ball hits it. She also uses the standard conspiracy theorist 10 second claim for the collapse time based on an incorrect reading of the seismic data, completely ignoring the videos that shows the buildings barely more than half way down at 10 seconds into the collapse. She also completely misrepresents the pancake collapse in her simple diagram. I could go on listing the glaring errors but why bother.
For the billiard ball analogy to even be close to reality, as each ball meets the one below it, their masses/momentums should be combined to create a new, larger falling mass. With that done, you'll see that each floor met will offer proportionally less resistance to the ever increasing momentum hitting it from above.
|
|