Dr. George O. Bizzigotti wrote in
:
I was able to find the text of the BYU press release at:
http://oddbits3.blogspot.com/2005/12...controversy.ht
ml
and Wikipedia includes quotes from the Chairman of BYU's Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
I wouldn't exactly say that this amounts to "debunking" Jones
hypothesis. Nevertheless, I would say that Jones is not exactly good
science here. He states his hypothesis, and he cherry-picks facts that
appear to support his hypothesis. That may be an effective debating
tool, but it's not good science. If one is doing science, one is
obligated to look for and present evidence against the hypothesis.
For starters, Jones assumes that a 0.6 second delay from what he
asserts would be the time required for a building to free-fall is too
short to allow for a fire-induced pancake collapse. There is zero
analysis to support this assumption; it may or may not be valid, but
I'd like to see reference to an engineering analysis of such a
collapse that supported his assumption.
Another assumption is that a building collapsing into it's own
footprint is inconsistent with the "Law of increasing entropy when due
to random causes." However, Jones cites as "proof" of this assertion
the collapse of buildings due to earthquakes. Might buildings in
earthquakes tend to collapse asymmetrically because the ground is
shaking underneath them in a non-random fashion?
Jones asserts that air expulsion due to collapsing floors is
"excluded" because the interval between puffs is longer than the time
required for one floor to free-fall to the next. He gives the equation
for acceleration due to gravity, which could be valid only for time to
collapse the first floor; I suspect that the first floor to go
actually took somewhat longer to collapse because it was not in free
fall. However, the equation is inadequate to explain the collapse of
the next floor, because the building above that point is now falling,
and therefore there are forces other than gravity to consider.
Jones suggests that the buildings were collapsed by radio-controlled
detonations using thermite and explosives, but he doesn't appear to
understand that controlled collapse using explosives in every case of
which I'm aware requires that the building be largely gutted, and that
the thermite chemical reaction requires a few seconds to melt metal,
so this alternative explanation has even bigger timing problems than
the "government explanation" he dismissed.
I really don't have the time or the energy to go through every detail
of Jones' paper. As another poster to this thread, who is a registered
professional engineer has explained, one can get a full review once
one's check clears. I suspect that I have done what other scientists
and engineers have done in the absence of payment: noticed multiple
egregious examples of ignoring rather large problems with his
hypothesis and concluded that Jones is more interested in scoring
debating points than he is in science in this instance.
Regards,
George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Dr Bizzigotti: Thank you for taking the time to provide some analysis of
Professor Jones' paper. Would you consider sending Dr Jones an email
describing your findings? Only when enough scientists come together will
the information and data be properly analysed.
Thank you,
TRUTH (individual member of the 9/11 Truth Movement)
Info on 9/11 Truth Movement:
www.NY911Truth.org (Les Jamieson - NY 911 Truth Coordinator)
www.911Truth.org (Nic Levis - 911 Truth East Coast Director)
Recent Article in The Village Voice:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/060...y,72255,6.html