Title: 9/11 Truth: Steven Jones on WTC 7 and Controlled Demolition Source:
9/11 Truth conference URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pJQ2yZfTY0 Published:Feb 20, 2007 Author:Steven Jones Post Date:2007-02-20 00:41:08 by robin Ping List:*9-11*Subscribe to *9-11* Keywords:None Views:13513 Comments:230
From Halifaxion
Steven Jones speaks at the Chicago 9/11 Steven Jones speaks at the Chicago 9/11 Truth conference (June 2006) about World Trade Center Building 7 and the case for controlled demolition of all three towers. This is just ten minutes from a longer lecture that you can find in its entirety on Google Video here:
#1. To: BeAChooser, Destro, Yertle Turtle, ++Official Govt Explanation of 911 Conspiracists++ (#0)
WTC7 ping!
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#2. To: BeAChooser, Destro, Yertle Turtle, ++Official Govt Explanation of 911 Conspiracists++ (#1)
WTC7 ping!
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Category: News & Opinion (Specific) Topic: Conspiracy: 9/11 - Alleged Coverups Synopsis: Structural engineering faculty of BYU repudiate Jones Source: Ira A. Fulton College News Published: November 1, 2005 Author: BYU College of Engineering and Technology For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use.
Brigham Young University has a policy of academic freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas. Through the academic process, ideas should be advanced, challenged, and debated by peer-review in credible venues. We believe in the integrity of the academic review process and that, when it is followed properly, peer-review is valuable for evaluating the validity of ideas and conclusions.
The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.
***************
Jones, btw, isn't the 1st to be silenced by this pack of blood thirsty pigs
First what? Sub-atomic particle physicist? ROTFLOL!
And by the way, he wasn't silenced. He resigned. Seemed quite happy about it. And he's still out there talking.
What else don't you know about Steven Jones, Jethro?
The BYU Engineering Dept. issued a statement to that effect at the time of Jones's release of his report. The Physics Dept. issued no such statement.
Thta's not the same thing as "the entire structural engineering department at BYU said..."
From the article I posted:
Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review.
The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.
By all means, angle, link us to the name of a member of the structural engineering department at BYU who has come out in support of Jones' theories.
For that matter, link us to the name of another professor of physics at BYU who has done that.
In fact, link to to ALL the names of structural engineers, physics professors, demolition experts and experts in fire, steel, impact and concrete who have come out in support of the assertions that Jones proclaims as established fact.
Did you watch this very short video? Did you watch the other very short videos that demonstrate to anyone who is not physically blind, the difference between a demolition and a collapsing building?
As I read the thread I see you have chosen to attack the credentials of Dr. Jones, rather than explain in your own words how this cannot be a demolition.
It's because you cannot. It was a demolition. A planned demolition. It is so obvious that MSM has refused to show the fall of WTC7.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.
shill....reading comprehension problem? BYUs statement is (they) "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." The statement makes no assertion as to it’s accuracy. Such argument might be cheered by your pal the human toothpick on LP, but not here.
There are very few, admittedly, who, having the courage of their convictions, would willing sacrifice their reputation and tenure after seeing what happened to Dr. Jones.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.
... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.
The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the “official” assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).
Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!" http://impactglassman
Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: "Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon."
Heikki Kurttila, PhD – Safety Engineer and Accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority (TUKES), Finland.
Analysis of the collapse of WTC Buidling 7, 11/18/05: "Conclusion: The observed collapse time of WTC 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. ... The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition." http://www.saunalahti.fi
Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).
Video 9/11/04: "A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. … There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. … Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible.…
Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.
I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. Now some people will say that’s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder." http://video.go
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
And then there are all the patriots who have served in some capacity with intelligence.
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer
Statement to this website 9/19/06: "I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. ... [A]nomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and WTC 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane], the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon ... Link to full statement
Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret) – Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. Former inspector and interpreter for the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty team.
Essay 9/11 and Non-investigation: "As a former Army officer, my tendency immediately after 911 was to rally 'round the colors and defend the country against what I then thought was an insidious, malicious all-Arab entity called Al-Qaida. In fact, in April of 2002, I attempted to reactivate my then-retired commission to return to serve my country in its time of peril. ...
A) passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down of proper defense procedures that (if followed) would have led US air assets to a quick identification and confrontation of the passenger aircraft that impacted WTC 1 and WTC 2, or worse ...
B) active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East ..." http://mujca.com/captain.htm
Speech 11/11/06 : "After five years of talking to many individuals in the intelligence community, in the military, foreign intelligence agencies, and a whole host of other people, people from the air traffic control community, the FAA, I came to the conclusion that after five years what we saw happen on that morning of September 11, 2001, was the result of a highly-compartmentalized covert operation to bring about a fascist coup in this country. ...
These people need to be brought to justice, if not by our own Congress, then by an international tribunal in the Hague, in the Netherlands. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney should be sitting in the same dockets where Milosevic and the Croatia-Serbia war criminals sat." http://video.google.com
Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President’ Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
Video 7/22/06: "I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke. The question is: What’s being covered up? Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence, misfeasance? … Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions. … I just want to reassert, what Scott [Ritter, former Major in the U.S. Marines Corps, former Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq] said and this is the bottom line for me, just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11. The cynical way in which he played on our trauma, used it to justify attacking, making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11. That suffices for me, I think Scott is exactly right, that’s certainly an impeachable offense." http://video.google
Endorsement of 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I) – Intellectuals Speak Out: "It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole 'war on terror' was based on a prior deception." http://www.interlinkbooks.com
William Christison – Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. 29-year CIA veteran.
Essay Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11 8/14/06: "I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. … The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them." http://www.dissidentvoice.org
Article 9/7/06: "David Griffin believes this all was totally an inside job - I've got to say I think that it was too. … I have since decided that....at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen or at least allowing it to happen. … The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes. … All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost had to have been controlled explosions." http://www.prisonplanet.com
Audio interview 9/29/06: "We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all. It gave the administration what it wanted to support their official story on what happened on the date of September 11 and that's all they cared about. ... It's a monstrous crime. Absolutely a monstrous crime." http://www.electricpolitics.com
Robert David Steele (Vivas) – U.S. Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years. Second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992 and a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. Also former clandestine services case officer with the CIA. 25-year U.S. military and intelligence career. Currently Founder and CEO of http://OSS.net and a proponent of Open Source Intelligence.
Essay 10/7/06: Review of Webster Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA. "I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war, and I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others of a neo-conservative neo-Nazi coup d'etat and kick-off of the clash of civilizations. ...
This is, without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism, and also the reference that most pointedly suggests that select rogue elements within the US Government, most likely led by Dick Cheney with the assistance of George Tenet, Buzzy Kronguard, and others close to the Wall Street gangs, are the most guilty of state-sponsored terrorism....
I sit here, a 54-year old, liberally educated, two graduate degrees, war college, a life overseas, 150 IQ or so, the number #1 Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, a former Marine Corps infantry officer, a former CIA clandestine case officer, founder of the Marine Corps Intelligence Center, and I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers." http://www.amazon.com
Article 10/27/06: "While Steele stopped short of saying 9/11 was a complete inside job, he agreed that the evidence points to the overwhelming complicity of the Bush administration.
"The U.S. government did not properly investigate this and there are more rocks to be turned over," said Steele adding, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I'm concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition." http://www.prisonplanet
Bogdan Dzakovic – 14-year Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration. Team Leader of the FAA's Red (Terrorism) Team, which conducted undercover tests on airport security through simulated terrorist attacks. Former Team Leader in the Federal Air Marshal program. Former Coast Guard officer. Witness before the 9/11 Commission.
Video transcript 8/21/05 : Regarding the 9/11 Commission "The best I could say about it is they really botched the job by not really going into the real failures. … At worst, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is treasonous." http://www.911report.com
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
I thought you might like to see an extensive list of "kooks" who don't believe the official story.
First, let us take a look at the 110 professors your site boasts about. What are the specialties of these professors?
Well the first 23 are all philosophers or they study/teach religion (or in one case, Islamic studies). I'm sure they know a lot about structures. You'd certainly think so given some of their comments.
Take James Fetzer, for instance, co-founder of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth organization. He's a philosopher. He claims, for instance, that the towers were designed to withstand the impacts of the planes that hit them. Untrue. While the mass of the design plane may be about the same, the velocity wasn't even close to that of the impacting planes. The WTC impacts had over seven times the energy and the design did not account for the effects of fire afterwards. He claims melting steel is part of NISTs theory for collapse of the towers. That is false. He claims that the fires were two low temperature and too brief to have caused the steel to weaken. False again. He claims there was no sagging or tilting before the collapse. A LIE. He claims there is not enough kinetic energy in the collapse of one floor to collapse the next lower floor. Nonsense. He claims the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds and the North in 11 seconds. Demonstrably false. He claims "pools" of molten metal were found in the subbasement. He has NO evidence to support this claim. He claims the hole in the Pentagon was too small to accommodate Flight 77. Apparently, he never actually looked at pictures of the hole. He claim the kind of debris was wrong. False, as I'll prove shortly. Get the picture?
Take David Griffin, as another example. He's both a philosopher AND a theologian. Wow! He must really be an authority given how often his papers on 9/11 are cited (even by many of the professors in the list). But is he really an expert when it comes to structures, impact, fire or steel? He claims, for instance, that each WTC tower collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed in approximately 10 seconds or less. But that has been shown to be untrue over and over. He claims the South Tower fires were small. False. And those are just two of many lies and distortions he spouts. Yet, many of the philosophers and theologians in the list cite Griffin as an expert on explosive demolition.
Now let's look at those listed under Mathematics, Science and Engineering.
************
A. K. Dewdney - computer science. He's a mathematician and environmentalist, who currently spends much of his professional and personal time pursuing and teaching environmental science. He says "debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions." Well this is completely untrue as these sources easily prove:
Dewdney also says "there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never present in the first place". Then how does he explain the downing of the lightpoles and the wingshaped damage on the outstide wall over 90 feet in width?
Clearly, Dewdney hasn't a clue what he is talking about.
************************
Hugo Bachmann - Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Swiss. Retired professor (after 30 year career). He is quoted saying that WTC7 was "with great probability, professionally demolished". But do they tell you this is based SOLELY on looking at a few video recordings presented to the professor by conspiracists during an interview? And according to http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/ “Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack. If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these 'explosive tenants' could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building without having anyone notice." Now is there documentary evidence to support the existance of these "explosive tenants"? No? And aren't there supposed to be bombs in the upper floors of WTC1 and WTC2? Ohhhh ... it turns out that Bachman wasn't talking about those towers when he mentioned his theory (despite what this 9/11 *Truth* implies). No, he was only referring to WTC7. As far as I can tell, Bachmann hasn't said anything about the two larger towers. Also unmentioned is that currently Bachmann seems to want nothing to do with questions about his comments. Hmmmmmm....
*****************
Joerg Schneider – Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Swiss. Agrees with Bachmann (in fact, he uses the same language in speaking about the event and happens to live in the same city as Bachmann). Note that he's 73. He's retired. And like Bachmann was only shown a small portion of the video and other evidence ... the part that conspiracists who interviewed him chose to show. His resume would indicate he focused on concrete structures and then, later, the safety and reliability of structures, with special emphasis on human error. And surely this expert has said more than the small quote attributed to him. Surely.
*****************
Jack Keller – Civil and Environmental Engineering. International advisor on water resources, development and agricultural water use. He is a specialist in agricultural and irrigation engineering, not structures. And he's VP of Westminster John Knox, the publisher of Griffin's book. He calls the nonsense that Griffin spouts about 9/11 “progressive stances on theological and social issues”. He's hardly qualified or a dispassionate observer.
******************
Steven Jones – physics. But that would be the physics of sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. That's ALL he's worked on for the last 30 years. Yet suddenly he is the 9/11 *Truth"'s movement principle expert on structures, steel, impact and fire. Does it get any funnier? ROTFLOL!
******************
David Griscom – research physicist. Loves Griffin. Notice that he studied at Brown (probably the most liberal school in the country). Worked at the Naval Research Laboratory for 33 years. But doing what? Working on structures? Steel? Fire? Demolition? No, he worked in the Optical Sciences Division. Researching the physics of silicon (for uses such as radiation shielding, waste management and fiber optics). Here are some of his papers and work product:
NONE of them have to do with structures or anything remotely connected to structures. But he considers himself an expert on those things, apparently. ROTFLOL!
******************
Bruce Henry - Mathematics and Computer Science. Guidance system engineer. Why that makes him eminently qualified to be an expert on controlled demolition. (sarcasm). ROTFLOL!
******************
John Cooper - chemistry. Admires Griffin. Papers are in the fields of chemical education and inorganic kinetics and structure (no, not the structure of buildings). I'll say this for him. He at least expresses no opinion with regard to what caused the damage at the WTC towers and Pentagon. Ooooops, I take it back. He asks "Why was there no evidence of a passenger jet debris at the Pentagon crash site?" Guess he hasn't bothered to read beyond anything Griffin wrote. ROTFLOL!
***************
Martin Walter - mathematics. Nothing in his resume to suggest any knowledge about buildings or steel or fire or impact or demolition. But there's something about solving a duality problem for groups. ROTFLOL!
***************
Robert Boyer - computer science. Yep. Just computer science.
***************
Joanna Rankin - physics and astronomy. An expert on pulsars. A real honest to gosh expert on pulsars. But not structures. Not impact. Not steel. Not fire. Not demolition. Just pulsars.
***************
Kenneth Kuttler - mathematics (what is it with mathematicians?). At BYU with Steve Jones. At least he's smart enough to stick to asking questions about WTC7. But seems to think he knows more about demolition than ... well ... demolition experts (like those at http://www.implosionworld.com ) who don't agree with him.
**************
Michael Elliot - said to have a teaching fellowship in either mathematics or physics in Belfast. It's not clear which, since I can't find much of anything else about this person. Bet he's a democrat given that he signed a petition complaining about the "huge sums" spent investigating Bill Clinton. Doesn't like Jim Hoffman. Claimed he worked for the NSA. But that doesn't appear to been true: http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/adhominem.html#elliot .
***************
Judy Woods - BS in civil engineering, MS and PHD in mechanical engineering. What they don't tell you about Judy is that she's an expert in dental structures. That's right ... DENTAL structures (and materials). Here's her own resume: http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf Notice the emphasis on biological materials and STATIC analysis/tests. NOTHING on buildings or fire or steel or concrete or dynamics or impact. Check out her research papers. ttp://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/Wood.html Here's a typical one "Mapping of tooth deformation caused by moisture change using moiré interferometry." , Dental Materials, Volume 19, Issue 3, Page 159. You won't find ANY on structures or buildings or impact problems of the sort that occurred in the WTC towers. But you will find plenty on DENTAL ISSUES. And oh yes, before you buy the nonsense at her http://janedoe0911.tripod.com website, read this: http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm And, by the way, readers should know that she's on the outs with Steven Jones and now thinks that some sort of high-energy beam weapon destroyed the WTC towers. She's linked up with an economist to prove it. ROTFLOL!
***************
Joshua Mitteldorf - Researcher, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. PHD in theoretical astrophysics. Need I say more? Well I guess I'll have to since it claims he was a former instructor of physics and math. His website says that in the past he's also worked in astrophysics, optical design, and energy conservation. Worked on computer simulations. And is a musician. A regular Renaissance Man. But in his statement on "physical model of WTC Collapse", he states with utter certainty that " that tall, slender objects will always fall to one side". But why can't any of the structural engineers and demolition experts of the world see that? I don't know of a single one who has made that claim. Yet it is so obvious (to a physicist). (sarcasm). He also makes the statement that the "maximum combustion temperature for jet fuel is 1000 Centigrade, far less than the melting point of steel. Paper, wood and other materials in the towers would have burned at yet lower temperatures." If that is true, why are there no REAL experts in fire saying that? In fact, how does Joshua explain temperatures of over 1000 C MEASURED at the Windsor Tower fire when that fire had no jet fuel ... just office furnishings to feed it?
******************
Gary Welz - mathematics (what is it with mathematicians?). His website says "He has over 20 years of experience in education and media as a teacher, writer, speaker, producer, consultant and journalist. He has special expertise in digital media production, digital asset management and digital content distribution.) Ahhhhhh ... he has a BA in Philosophy. That explains it. ROTFLOL!
******************
Ted Micceri - coordinator of institutional research. What sort of credential is that? He's a professor of statistical analysis. That's more like it. But still not a background that will tell one much about the expected behavior of structures during impacts and fire.
*****************
Kenneth Swoden - mathematics. Please, no more experts in math. Please.
*****************
Robert Stern - mathematics. I'm beginning to understand what drove Ted Kaczynski to madness.
*****************
Garry Anaquod - computer science and physics. Canada. What can we find out about him. Well this, http://www.innovationplace.com/html/newslttr/2003/jan03.htm " Garry Anaquod is the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Technology Officer of BeComm. With degrees in Computer Science and Physics, Anaquod has carried an IT vision for First Nations communities for many years as he spent 11 years instructing computer science students at the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College."
*****************
Well, that's the mathematicians, scientists and engineers.
What's left?
7 lawyers.
6 economists.
8 medical and biological sciences *experts*.
14 historians.
9 anthropology, psychology or social science *experts*.
19 *experts* in arts and humanities.
5 *experts* in education, leadership and management.
3 geographers, geologists and environmental science *experts*.
19 US Federal and State Government officials ... not one who is an scientist or engineer. But they do have Cynthia McKinney. ROTFLOL!
19 Military *experts*. But not they include Douglas Rokke (a liar at best). Not a very discriminating website.
1 U.S. Government scientist and researcher. Oooops, that's Griscom and we already counted him as a professor. And then we discounted him. ROTFLOL!
31 (if I counted right) US intelligence experts. But how intelligent can some of them be when they cite Scott Ritter, Griffin and www.prisonplanet .
17 international military, intelligence and government officials. They often cite Griffin ... and even worse, Thierry Meyssan. ROTFLOL!
6 - 9/11 commissionars and staff. Care to prove any believe something other than planes did the damage at the WTC and Pentagon?
Now you may think that is a bunch of folks qualified to speak about structures, impact, fire, steel, seismology, demolition and macro-world physics. But I don't. And I'm confident that most lurkers and visitors to this thread won't either.
Did you watch the other very short videos that demonstrate to anyone who is not physically blind, the difference between a demolition and a collapsing building?
Just curious robin. If it's that obvious, how do you explain that less than a handful of structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the whole world have come forward to support the notion of a demolition?
shill....reading comprehension problem? BYUs statement is (they) "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." The statement makes no assertion as to it’s accuracy. Such argument might be cheered by your pal the human toothpick on LP, but not here.
Go ahead. Give us the name of ONE structural engineer at BYU who supports Jone's theory. JUST ONE. Surely you can. ROTFLOL!
It takes courage to step forward and be a target of the most evil regime in our nation's history. It's easy to go along with the Bush Cabal.
Why doesn't MSM ever show the fall of WTC7?
Why would esteemed engineers and scientists and patriotic ex-Intel go against the official govt explanation (a far-fetched conspiracy in itself)? Why would they stick their necks out and become a target unless it was for a very good reason?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
