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:13771 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.
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.)
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.
Really dumb move attempting to discredit such people.
Such chutzpah is what will bring you and your ilk down.
Looking at the current state of affairs in the world is indicative of collective ignorance that encompasses all stratums of society. From the mindless mall waddlers to the philosophical PHD's clogging the Universities ... the evidence is overwhelming that ignorance rules.
BeAlooser typifies a mindset particular to an ethnicity that has demonstrated a parasitic propensity for thousands of years.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
#46. To: BeAChooser, robin, rowdee, SKYDRIFTER, Kamala, RickyJ, Red Jones, All (#24)
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.
In academia, private industry and especially govt research institutions, there is more than a little cut-throat activity among competing scientists, not to mention a strict protocol where one does not talk about certain things, they must tow the line or else. They often compare it to belonging to the communist party in that way.
THAT is why so few who are currently employed refuse to come out and testify, they know they will be ridiculed and most likely fired for doing so, along with having their reputation smeared, especially by envious peers who will be more than happy to take advantage of such a situation to further their own careers.
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.
Doesn't exactly take an expert in structures to see that this is a demolition. BTW, what is your specialty BeAChooser? Or do you have one?
You're right, it doesn't.
And don't expect an answer from the shill. I've asked the exact same thing - and the answer I got is "I don't intend to answer your question. I'm content to rely on the expertise of the tens of thousands of professionals around the world who have designed and built the world we live in and all its marvels. Unlike you, I'm not claiming expertise."
Many people find it necessary to ridicule others who tell them things they do not understand. Since they do not have the knowledge to be able to figure things out for themselves, they simply rely upon others to do their thinking for them. BAC is content to say that a can of Pepsi has 12 ozs in it because that's what it says on the can - NOT because he can mathematically figure out the volume of a cylindrical container. That's why he vehemently attempts to discredit mathematicians concerning the collapses. Mathematical formulas exist to show freefall time of an object over a certain distance; as well as time of a fall considering the mass, resistance, gravitational pull, etc - thus mathematics are VERY relevant in the collapses, and mathematicians would have a HIGHLY RELEVANT level of expertise in uncovering the truth irrelevant of any other level of expertise they may have in the matter. Thus when a mathematician claims it is IMPOSSIBLE for the collapses to have happened in the time frame in which they did, under the circumstances of the "official story" - THAT CANNOT BE DISMISSED AS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY AREN'T STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING EXPERTS!!!
BAC is incapable of thinking on his own. My theory is that he has a skull about 3½ inches thick all the way around which leaves room for a brain about the size of a walnut - roughly the size of a goose's...
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Of course they don't, they don't want to lose their funding!
BINGO
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
THAT is why so few who are currently employed refuse to come out and testify, they know they will be ridiculed and most likely fired for doing so, along with having their reputation smeared, especially by envious peers who will be more than happy to take advantage of such a situation to further their own careers.
The politics in academia are hideous, good point.
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.)
But the videos explain it in a way a child could understand.
It takes less than high school physics to comprehend the free fall explanation that is available in detail.
But his argument is that since govt engineers ( who were bribed and blackmailed to ) say that the obvious is not what happened, that makes their explanation true.
What's the name of that guy who has an award going for anyone who can prove the govt's theory?
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.)
$100,000 reward: Prove "official" 9/11 story One man of means' attempt to set the record straight The details are still being worked out but you can tell anyone who believes boxcutter-wielding Arabs took down the Twin Towers, took out the Pentagon and crashed a plane over Pennsylvania that there's $100,000 waiting for them if they can support with facts and evidence the government explanation of 9/11. It's a good deal for 9/11 truth seekers because we know California millionaire Jimmie Walter will be able to keep his money; if publicized correctly it will be a bad deal for the Bush administration because enough people with credentials who believe the official will try, unsuccessfully to prove the Bush administration's "magic Arab" theory.
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.)
Yea, it blew my mind when I first found it, to see so many credentialed professionals from military, media and academia all either questioning the official story or flat out saying it was an inside job.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
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.
Yea, it blew my mind when I first found it, to see so many credentialed professionals from military, media and academia all either questioning the official story or flat out saying it was an inside job.
Only a sub-70 IQ type would still buy the official story today.
We still don't have all the details of how things happened, but we do how things didn't happen.
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.
Thus when a mathematician claims it is IMPOSSIBLE for the collapses to have happened in the time frame in which they did,
Given a bunch of assumptions about the resistance of the structure. Assumptions they aren't qualified to make. And by the way, except for their name, only ONE of the mathematicians in the list offers any details about what they actually believe concerning 9/11. How do you know they believe there were bombs in the towers?
BAC is incapable of thinking on his own. My theory is that he has a skull about 3½ inches thick all the way around which leaves room for a brain about the size of a walnut - roughly the size of a goose's...
Come on innieway ... is that the best you can come up with in defense of your patriot's list?
Maybe BAC can win the $1,000,000 reward I heard about for proving the official story.
I guess you didn't hear that the contest contains some rules and requirements that make it IMPOSSIBLE to win the reward. Here's one:
13) Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds.
That is a complete non-starter and THE REASON why it is a waste of time to enter that contest. Because the towers did not collapse in 8.4 seconds and therefore it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to prove this. Videos taken that day prove clearly that it took the upper floors of the towers as much as 15 seconds to reach ground level.
Would you like some more examples of how dishonest the authors of the contest were?
13) Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds.
Was broken apart, not reach ground level.
Try again.
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.)
Given a bunch of assumptions about the resistance of the structure.
Boy you (BAC) really are dumb aren't you.
(felt compelled to put his name in parenthesis to facilitate his limited intellect)
Look there was aprox. 440 tons of steel on each floor of the building and there is this little thing called inertia. In a pancake type fall the floors above would have to crash into the floors below. Prior to the crash the lower floor had a velocity of zero, so the upper floor's mass velocity would cause an acceleration of the lower floor from zero to a speed approaching that of the initial upper floor speed. This sequence of events would repeat 80 something times. Each successive acceleration of the lower floor would be greater due to the increased mass of the material falling on it until it reached the last floor. The repeated resistance (yes it does exist no matter how dumb you are) of 440 tons+ (plus all the other material involved)of inertial starting at zero velocity would slow the fall a hell of a lot more than free fall.
Get a life or a brain and maybe both but don't continue down this absurd path reasoning.
