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:13530 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:
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.
You've just proven your blatant dishonesty or ignorance or nacisissism or all combined by attacking the credentials of these scientists. It also shows you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Congratulations, you've just proven your lack of authority to speak of these topic in a big way.
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.
Really dumb move attempting to discredit such people.
Such chutzpah is what will bring you and your ilk down.
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).
What does Brown being a "liberal" university have to do with their science department? Can you tell us the difference between a liberal physics class and a conservative physics class? How about a liberal math class vs. conservative math class? Could you explain these differences?
Your arrogance is simply astounding.
By the way, what are YOUR credentials to be speaking so certainly on all this? Are you a world-renouned structural engineer?
You appear to claim one must be one in order to comment on this topic with any authority.
