Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

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: 13638
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:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2436472348579687382

Subscribe to *9-11*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 116.

#3. To: robin, ALL (#0)

I've decided this should be posted on any 9/11 conspiracy thread that suggests something other than planes caused the WTC and Pentagon damage:

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-20   14:16:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: BeAChooser (#3)

I'm just curious.

Do you have a low intellect, like to be a troll or do you get paid for your dellusions.

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-20   14:19:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: intotheabyss, ALL (#4)

Do you have a low intellect, like to be a troll or do you get paid for your dellusions.

You didn't find it funny and appropriate?

Tell me, what do you know about Steven Jones?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-20   14:26:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: BeAChooser (#5)

You didn't find it funny and appropriate?

I love having shills like you around. I find you very entertaining.

Pathological people only make up 2% of the pop.

I get to see up front what someone is like that has no conscience and has no problem selling out their fellow man.

Keep up the good work.

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-20   14:35:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: intotheabyss, ALL (#6)

Tell me, what do you know about Steven Jones?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-20   14:40:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: BeAChooser (#7)

Keep up the good work.

Like clockwork. How does it feel to be so predictable?

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-20   14:42:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: intotheabyss, ALL (#8)

Tell me, what do you know about Steven Jones?

Anything at all?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-20   14:50:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: BeAChooser (#10)

I know he isn't part of the Bush administration, which lends instant credibility.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-02-20   15:04:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Jethro Tull, ALL (#11)

I know he isn't part of the Bush administration,

He also isn't a professor at BYU anymore.

And the entire structural engineering department at BYU said his assertions weren't supported by the facts.

Anything more you want to tell us about Steven Jones?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-20   15:10:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: BeAChooser (#13)

And the entire structural engineering department at BYU said his assertions weren't supported by the facts.

Linky please.

Jones, btw, isn't the 1st to be silenced by this pack of blood thirsty pigs, but you knew that I'm sure.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-02-20   15:15:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Jethro Tull, ALL (#17)

"And the entire structural engineering department at BYU said his assertions weren't supported by the facts."

Linky please.

*************

From here:

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?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-20   15:28:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: BeAChooser (#21)

The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.

Of course they don't, they don't want to lose their funding!

You know that!

Diana  posted on  2007-02-22   9:08:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Diana, ALL (#45)

The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.

Of course they don't, they don't want to lose their funding!

Are you saying the structural engineers at BYU know that it was a controlled demolition that killed about 3000 Americans but aren't saying word one about that because of the all mighty dollar? Why that would make them truly EVIL, wouldn't it, Diana? Perhaps you should write them and tell them what you think of them.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   14:05:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: BeAChooser (#67)

Are you saying the structural engineers at BYU know that it was a controlled demolition that killed about 3000 Americans but aren't saying word one about that because of the all mighty dollar? Why that would make them truly EVIL, wouldn't it, Diana?

Yes that would make them evil if they really thought that the towers were brought down with a explosives yet would not admit it. However it could be that they are not evil, but rather stupid. I think you give structural engineers way too much credit for being smart. The ones I know aren't exactly rocket scientists.

RickyJ  posted on  2007-02-22   14:50:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: RickyJ, BeAChooser (#81)

The exposives detonating are visible in small plumes of smoke from the sides of the buildings, just under the line of fall. There is a name for this in the demolition industry, that is so well acquainted with them.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/explosives.html

robin  posted on  2007-02-22   14:58:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: robin, ALL (#84)

The exposives detonating are visible in small plumes of smoke from the sides of the buildings, just under the line of fall.

No, what is visible is air, compressed by the collapse, blowing out windows below the line of fall. You do know that the building was 95 percent air? Where do you think that air went as the building collapsed, robin?

There is a name for this in the demolition industry, that is so well acquainted with them.

Curious that no demolition expert in the world says that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were controlled demolitions and many have said they weren't.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   15:07:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: BeAChooser (#91)

Curious that no demolition expert in the world says that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were controlled demolitions and many have said they weren't.

That's a lie.

RickyJ  posted on  2007-02-22   15:09:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: RickyJ, BeAChooser, *9-11* (#94)

Curious that no demolition expert in the world says that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were controlled demolitions and many have said they weren't.

That's a lie.

Yes it is.

Start with this one:

Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7 (original subtitles)

robin  posted on  2007-02-22   15:10:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: robin, rickyj, ALL (#95)

Curious that no demolition expert in the world says that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were controlled demolitions and many have said they weren't.

That's a lie.

Yes it is.

Start with this one:

Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7 (original subtitles)

ROTFLOL! I hate to tell you, robin, but Mr Jowenko has specifically stated that the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were clearly NOT controlled demolitions.

http://screwloosechangedebunked.wordpress.com/2006/09/18/not-a-single-demolition-firm/ "The Jowenko video on youtube is edited to show Jowenko’s reaction to the WTC7 collapse which he does indeed opine is a CD. However the portion of the show where Jowenko states that WTC 1 and 2 were clearly NOT CD has been edited out."

And didn't you know that Jowenko based his opinion about WTC7 SOLELY on a video tape supplied by conspiracists and that he didn’t know that it happened on 9/11, didn’t know the building was on fire, and didn't know that firemen had observed the structure leaning long before the collapse and were sure it would collapse?

And you might want to check out this

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63884

because Jowenko appears to have some rather kooky ideas.

You will never find the truth on a foundation of misinformation, robin.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   15:23:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: BeAChooser (#100)

On Sept 14, a demolition expert who works for the Pentagon, professor Van Romero, said that upon his viewing of the collapse videos, he believed that it was a controlled demolition. Prof Romero later retracted his statement in mysterious circumstances, refusing to say why and refusing to offer any alternative scenario, simply saying that he wasn't prepared to say what did or didn't happen, and didn't want to talk about it anymore.

http://911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51

robin  posted on  2007-02-22   15:35:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: BeAChooser (#108)

WTC1 and WTC2 weres no ordinary demolitions.

http://www.rense.com/general67/9118.htm

http://letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

THE EXPERTS SPEAK OUT

Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told the American Free Press, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated." According to Lerner-Lam, "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."

A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of Univ. of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground explosion appears on a seismograph. Another seismologist, Won-Young Kim, stated that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away. These blasts are caused by 80,000 lbs. of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2.

Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the huge towers.

------------

A call was placed to Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) who arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation

American Free Press asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

What could have caused those box columns of 4-inch thick steel to melt like this?

robin  posted on  2007-02-22   15:50:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: robin, IndieTX, ALL (#109)

WTC1 and WTC2 weres no ordinary demolitions.

But wait!!! I thought you folks have been telling us all along that they look just like other demolitions. ROTFLOL!

Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told the American Free Press, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated." According to Lerner-Lam, "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."

Christopher Boyle, the hack journalist for AFP, lied and distorted the facts repeatedly in his articles about the WTC collapse and seismic data.

Would you like to see what Lerner-Lam believes, robin? Here is what he told Popular Mechanics:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

You will never find the true by quoting misinformation, robin.

A call was placed to Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.

Now Mark Loizeaux is an honest to gosh demolition expert. And he says categorically that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were not controlled demolitions.

American Free Press asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

You really should read this, robin:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

IndieTX won't because he bozo'd himself.

But you should ... if you want a foundation based on actual facts.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   16:21:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: BeAChooser (#115)

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The guy is another idiot. You seem to love to quote idiots, I guess that makes you a super idiot.

RickyJ  posted on  2007-02-22   16:27:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 116.

        There are no replies to Comment # 116.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 116.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest