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: 13751
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

Comments (1-49) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#50. To: innieway (#48)

well said. as always.

christine  posted on  2007-02-22   10:39:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: innieway, BeAChooser (#48)

Many people find it necessary to ridicule others who tell them things they do not understand.

I like this one from him concerning mathematicians:

"Robert Stern - mathematics. I'm beginning to understand what drove Ted Kaczynski to madness."-- BeAChooser

Diana  posted on  2007-02-22   10:53:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Diana (#46)

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.)

robin  posted on  2007-02-22   11:05:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: innieway (#48)

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.)

robin  posted on  2007-02-22   11:12:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Diana, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Kamala, All (#46)

"Team Member" = "Party Member"

That's the Next-Generation Nazism.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-02-22   11:22:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: innieway, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#48)

BAC is the wannabe intelectual terminator. He requires a strictly controlled environment, devoid of free-thinkers.

If BAC had his way, common sense would join 'holocaust denial.'


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-02-22   11:24:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: BeAChooser (#38)

$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.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9124194186333362123

Jimmy Walter has had a long standing offer for anyone who can prove the govt's conspiracy theory

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20041215.htm

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.)

robin  posted on  2007-02-22   11:58:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: christine (#27)

there's an edit function for you to fix your typos

Thanks

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   13:32:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: lodwick (#30)

Good site - thanks.

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.

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   13:36:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: innieway (#48)

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

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

angle  posted on  2007-02-22   13:36:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Diana (#43)

Such chutzpah is what will bring you and your ilk down.

At the first reading of his inane posts I wasn’t sure of his agenda but now he is showing his true colors

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   13:43:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: noone222 (#44)

BeAlooser typifies a mindset particular to an ethnicity that has demonstrated a parasitic propensity for thousands of years.

Thanks, this had me rolling :)

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   13:46:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Diana, ALL (#42)

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.

That's your defense of them? That's it? ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   13:53:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: robin, innieway (#53)

What's the name of that guy who has an award going for anyone who can prove the govt's theory?

Maybe BAC can win the $1,000,000 reward I heard about for proving the official story. Although having a goose brain might make it really challenging

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   13:55:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: Diana, ALL (#43)

David L. Griscom, PhD ... snip ...

Really dumb move attempting to discredit such people.

An expert in silicon and waste management.

Just the sort of credentials needed to pontificate authoritatively on what damaged the WTC and Pentagon.

ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   13:57:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: noone222, ALL (#44)

From the mindless mall waddlers to the philosophical PHD's clogging the Universities ... the evidence is overwhelming that ignorance rules.

Well said ... especially that part about "philosophical PHD's".

BeAlooser typifies a mindset particular to an ethnicity that has demonstrated a parasitic propensity for thousands of years.

You will not find truth on a foundation of lies and disinformation promoted by folks who know NOTHING about the subject they are pontificating about.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   14:00:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: intotheabyss (#58)

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.

Dr.Ron Paul for President

Lod  posted on  2007-02-22   14:02:18 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: lodwick (#66)

We still don't have all the details of how things happened, but we do how things didn't happen.

That’s why the shills focus on the former. They certainly can't defend the latter.

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   14:22:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: innieway, ALL (#48)

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?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   14:22:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: lodwick, intotheabyss (#66)

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 know how things didn't happen.

it's really just as simple as that.

christine  posted on  2007-02-22   14:31:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: intotheabyss, innieway, robin, ALL (#63)

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?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   14:32:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: intotheabyss, lodwick, ALL (#68)

We still don't have all the details of how things happened, but we do how things didn't happen.

That’s why the shills focus on the former. They certainly can't defend the latter.

You won't find the truth on a foundation of lies.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   14:33:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: BeAChooser (#71)

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.)

robin  posted on  2007-02-22   14:33:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: BeAChooser, RickyJ, Diana, Christine, Kamala, Robin, Skydrifter, intotheabyss, Corn Flake Girl, Tom007, Jethro Tull, Critter, Scrapper2, Aristeides, Honway, angle, Lodwick, Noone222, Indie TX, BTP Holdings, ALL (#69)

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.

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   14:39:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: BeAChooser (#71)

broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds.

Because the towers did not collapse in 8.4 seconds

You need to revisit basic reading skills.

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   14:42:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: christine (#70)

I almost hate to admit it but I'm having too much fun. :P

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   14:43:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: BeAChooser (#72)

foundation of lies.

That is an excellent screen name for you. But you should omit the spaces.

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   14:46:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: robin, ALL (#73)

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.

Also from the contest rules:

The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds though the complete settling of the building lasted slightly longer, perhaps as long as 12 seconds,

The towers took well in excess of 8.4 seconds to collapse to ground level. Photos taken ten seconds into the event show that alumimum cladding and sections of outer columns that are free falling outside the periphery of the towers have not yet reached the ground and are well ahead of the collapsing level of the tower. Videos also prove this.

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

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   14:47:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: BeAChooser (#78)

There were 3 buildings, the times are slightly different. They all fell close to free fall.

Give up supporting the liars, the truth will set you free.

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.)

robin  posted on  2007-02-22   14:50:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: intotheabyss, ALL (#74)

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.

WTC 1 and WTC 2 did not collapse at free fall rates.

You will never find the truth on a foundation of lies.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   14:50:25 ET  Reply   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.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

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


#82. To: robin, ALL (#79)

There were 3 buildings, the times are slightly different. They all fell close to free fall.

That is untrue. WTC 1 and WTC 2 did NOT collapse at *close* to free fall velocity. In fact, at free fall velocities, towers more than twice as high could have collapsed in the same amount of time as the observed collapse.

You will never find the truth if you start with misinformation.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   14:56:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: robin, RickyJ, Diana, Christine, Kamala, Robin, Skydrifter, intotheabyss, Corn Flake Girl, Tom007, Jethro Tull, Critter, Scrapper2, Aristeides, Honway, angle, Lodwick, Noone222, Indie TX, BTP Holdings, ALL (#79)

We should have a vote, not on booting BAC(he is too much fun) but on why he hold the beliefs that he does.

What do you guys think?

Is he just seriously mentally challenged?

Is he psychologically challenged (troll)?

Is he a shill through and through?

Or is he a combination of several of these?

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   14:57:45 ET  Reply   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

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.)

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


#85. To: BeAChooser (#80) (Edited)

So you have no specialty. What do you yo do all day, post propaganda for your evil masters?

You have shown very little ability to reason, you rely on idiots to think for you, and are quite frankly a bore. You can roll on the floor and laugh for your evil masters all day, maybe they will give you a treat.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

RickyJ  posted on  2007-02-22   14:59:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: intotheabyss (#83)

Is he a shill through and through?

That's my vote.

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.)

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


#87. To: RickyJ (#85)

You can roll on the floor for you evil masters all day, maybe they will give you a treat.

I'll mark you down as a vote for shill. (post #83)

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   15:03:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: BeAChooser (#82)

A pancake fall, each floor hitting the one under it, would have taken much longer than times recorded.

These building fell like a demolition, especially WTC7, which was never hit, and had only very small fires.

They look like a demolition, they have explosives going off, just under the line of fall, just like a demolition; they are demolitions.

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.)

robin  posted on  2007-02-22   15:04:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: robin (#86)

Is he a shill through and through? That's my vote.

That's two for shill, do I have any more votes?

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   15:05:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: intotheabyss (#83)

Is he a shill through and through?

He's a paid shill.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

RickyJ  posted on  2007-02-22   15:05:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (91 - 230) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest