mrtravel wrote in
. com:

Wake Up! wrote:



Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that?

Where is the evidence that it was thermite?
You posted a link to someone who claimed it was nuclear.
Are you going to claim you didn't read that either?
You have a habit of posting links as "proof" and then claiming these
are not your beliefs.



There is NO concrete evidence (at this time) that it was thermite.

Jones' paper is a hypothesis. See here if not familiar:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis

The evidence he shows suggests controlled demolitions. The purpose of his
paper is to call for a new investigation.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takea...ltl=1141667399





Let's not forget that
hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters
are growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22
seminar, he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new
investigation.

Cite? Prior reviews of the same "evidence" have caused his peers to
regard him as "misinformed". Did new "evidence" come to light?






From his paper:



11. Faculty at WTC Review Support Investigation



I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU on
September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and
scientific arguments for the controlled demolition theory. In attendance
were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering,
Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps
other departments as I did not recognize all of the people present. A
local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State
College).



The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only
when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material
summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the collapses
of WTC 7 and the Towers, only one attendee disagreed (by hand-vote) that
further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for. The next day,
the dissenting professor said he had further thought about it and now
agreed that more investigation was needed. He joined the others in hoping
that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST
plus others held by the FBI would be released for independent scrutiny;
photos largely from private photographers (NIST, 2005, p. 81). Therefore,
I along with others call for the release of these data to a cross-
disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers.