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:13671 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:
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. because Jowenko appears to have some rather kooky ideas.
Diana supposedly quoting me - 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. because Jowenko appears to have some rather kooky ideas.
Why'd you leave out what I wrote between "demolitions." and "because"? When you leave out something you should probably note it with a "... skip ..." so folks don't get confused by your posts.
HE VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT WTC7 IS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!!!
WHY DO YOU IGNORE THAT!!!
He based his opinion on the videos alone. If he had all the evidence, of the explosions heard by the firefighters, the seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell, for example, he would have a different explanation.
If just one of the buildings was a demolition, then it proves the government was involved. It takes weeks in advance to wire a building.
He based his opinion on the videos alone. If he had all the evidence, of the explosions heard by the firefighters, the seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell, for example, he would have a different explanation.
If just one of the buildings was a demolition, then it proves the government was involved. It takes weeks in advance to wire a building.
Can you deny that!?!?
Let's try this again.
Mr Jowenko only watched the videos. How many times must this be repeated to you?
You can never accuse anyone of being overly selective with your posts again, you do it yourself.
There were NO seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell (other than those associated with the aircraft impacts).
The Palisades seismic record shows that — as the collapses began — a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.
Who do think recorded that seismic data, robin? Lerner-Lam and his staff. And they state categorically that the seismic record does NOT show signs of a demolition. Let me repeat what he said again: "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."
In fact, the raw seismic data is available to any seismologist around the world. And guess what? There isn't ONE who has come forward to say there is something in that record that doesn't jibe with NIST's explanation of the collapses.
The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses,
This is simply FALSE, robin. The seismic traces when looked at with a broader time scale rather than that compressed one you posted clearly show a gradually increasing amplitude, with the peak oscillations near the middle of the waveform, not at the beginning as your source wants folks to believe. ImplosionWorld, experts on demolition, is on the record
"In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibrations during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration "spikes" documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data. This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presense of any unusual or abnormal vibration events."
You simply don't know what you are talking about, robin, You are so eager to make the government bad guys, you will believe anything posted by conspiracists. It is sad.
