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:13697 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.
Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.
While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.
The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.
However, 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.
A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.
The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.
Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.
Citing a AFP article written by Christopher Bollyn is not very convincing, robin. Bollyn is one of those who has done just what Lerner-Lam complained about. Or worse. I happen to think he's an outright liar who made up quotes from people since quotes in his articles could not be corroborated even by going to the individuals quoted (such as Lerner-Lam).
Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades,
Where do you think Lerner-Lam and his colleagues work, robin?
ROTFLOL!
While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.
This is what I mean about Bollyn LYING, robin. There are no unusual spikes at the beginning of each collapse. Neither Lerner-Lam or any seismologist around the world has said there were. And I quoted ImplosionWorld (experts in demolotion) stating categorically this is not true. If you look at the waveforms with broader timescales you will see this. Or are you too lazy to go look?
The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses
This is absolutely untrue, robin.
You will not find truth by mindlessly regurgitating other's lies.
No, robin, Bollyn was either taking things said by seismologists completely out of context or outright making up quotes and attributing them to them. He CLAIMED to cite what Lerner-Lam said but I showed you what Lerner-Lam actually said (with quotation marks). You can go directly to the reports put out by Lerner-Lam and his staff. They say NOTHING about spikes or seeing anything remotely related to bombs in the towers explosions in the seismic traces. They say and the seismic records clearly show that Bollyn's claim that the peak amplitudes are at the beginning of the collapse is FALSE. FALSE. The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. Riviera, Bollyn and YOU used only one graph which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span, too long to see any real detail in the pulses. The truth is that Bollyn LIED, robin. And you appear to be gullible enough to believe those lies or because they conform to what you WANT to believe. Either is sad.
The South Tower collapse:
The North Tower collapse:
As to Thorne statement, I suggest you contact him to see if he thinks there is any indication of bombs in the seismic data traces:
"Shortly before the first tower came down, I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. ... By the time the debris settled from the first collapse, we started to walk back east, toward West Street, and a few minutes later ... we basically had the same thing: The ground shook again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down." [EMS Lieutenant Bradley Mann]
I guess you missed this link I posted to you on the other thread.
So robin ... can you tell everyone the qualifications of Craig T. Furlong or Gordon Ross, authors of your linked article? Can you tell us anything about Craig Furlong, other than his name?
Here, let me help you. "Craig T Furlong" has indicated in various places on the web that he's from Huntington, California. He's listed on the Scholars for 9/11 *Truth* website as "Quantitative Methods, Business Administration." But not much else is provided anywhere in anything he posts.
Well, what do you know ... there is a Craig T. Furlong in Huntington Beach, CA. Here. According to this, Craig is a Chief Financial Officer of a non-profit charitable company that provides Medical, Counseling and Support Services. That fits the st911 description. That would sure qualify him to write an authoritative article on seismic data and its interpretation. ROTFLOL!
Now if I'm wrong about thinking Craig is this individual, by all means set me straight. Tell us, robin ... who is Craig T Furlong?
One more thing ... on various 9/11 forums, Craig makes some rather interesting assertions ... such as "anyone who sees a video of WTC7 KNOWS it was a controlled demolition." Now there's someone who didn't make up his mind until viewing all the data. Guess he's also a demolition expert. ROTFLOL!
And what about Gordon Ross? Isn't he the guy who also claims any initial collapse would have been arrested by the intact lower section of the buildings? Ah yes, that is the guy. The guy who holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering and graduated from Liverpool John Moores University in 1984. The guy who is smarter than all the structural and demolition engineers in the world. Who is smarter than all the computer codes that have shown the collapse would have continued to the ground once it started. And who now is also smarter than all the seismologists in the world too.
Let's look at his analysis of the collapse I mentioned above. The following is from a discussion about it that I found on the web here: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/17/18281125.php . "His analysis assumes that the columns in the floors being impacted will reconnect with something in the falling debris that will maximally resist the descent of all of the debris above. He states "Upon impact with the lower section the falling mass would deliver a force which would grow from zero, up to the failure load of the impacted storey columns, over a finite period of time and distance." That premise leads to this statement "The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact. A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point." But Ross assumes a perfect descent of the collapsing structure and perfect contact between the columns of the falling floors with the undamaged columns in the floors below. THIS IS AN ABSURD PREMISE."
Anyone know what Mr Ross has actually worked on during his engineering life? We wouldn't want him to be another, Professor Jones, who gets called a physicist but actually has only worked on sub-atomic particle physics for the last 30 years. Now since Mr Ross posts over at Liberty Forum, maybe he could be convinced to join us here to tell us a little more about his qualifications. You game to contact him, robin? Maybe you can get him to confirm Craig T. Furlong's qualifications while you are at it.
They show 2 seismic spikes before the towers hit the ground.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
That's the seismologists' interpretation.
FALSE. There is not one seismologist in the world who believes bombs brought down the WTC towers. You are believing the lies of a KOOK named Bollyn, robin.
You are interested only in distortion and lies.
You will NEVER find the truth on a foundation of lies, robin.
