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: 13774
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 (1-67) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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  


#91. To: robin, ALL (#84)

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.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   15:07:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: BeAChooser (#91)

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?

WMV video of the above collapse (412kB)

High quality slo-mo zoom of above (1.4 MB)

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   15:08:46 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: RickyJ (#90)

He's a paid shill.

I tend to feel the same. That's why I enjoy his presence so much. We get to see first hand how the vermin work (I would say think, but we all know they are not allowed or are not capable of that luxury).

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   15:08:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: BeAChooser (#91)

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.

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   15:09:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: RickyJ, BeAChooser, *9-11* (#94)

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)

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   15:10:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: robin, ALL (#88)

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

Based on your expertise?

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

Not true. The building was hit by debris and firement who were there said the fires were large and that they could tell early on that the structure was going to collapse.

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

Then why hasn't a single demolition expert in the ENTIRE WORLD said this?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   15:11:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: RickyJ, ALL (#94)

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.

And the name of a demolition expert who has said they were controlled demolitions?

Here's the name of some who say they weren't.

http://www.implosionworld.com

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   15:12:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: BeAChooser (#96) (Edited)

You're the liar BAC. Stop working for the traitors to this once great nation.

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   15:15:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: BeAChooser, 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 (#91)

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?

That’s why the separation between the puffs is so symmetrical (several windows unaffected between each puff) all the way down the building.

Yea, yea, that makes total sense. ;)

As the velocity of the building increases so does the build up of your so called pressure. So as the building got closer to the ground we should have seen less space between each puff and if your BS was reasonable it would happen at all the windows, not select spacing. Remember... The windows are of the same design, not several being thicker then a thin one, then several being thicker, then a thin one.

Come on, come up with something better than that.

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   15:16:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: robin, rickyj, ALL (#95)

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.

http://screwloosechangedebunked.wordpress.com/2006/09/18/not-a-single-demolition-firm/ "The Jowenko video on youtube is edited to show Jowenko’s reaction to the WTC7 collapse which he does indeed opine is a CD. However the portion of the show where Jowenko states that WTC 1 and 2 were clearly NOT CD has been edited out."

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?

And you might want to check out this

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63884

because Jowenko appears to have some rather kooky ideas.

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

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   15:23:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: All (#95)

Extended version available here:

http://911blogger.com/node/3231

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   15:23:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: robin, ALL (#98)

You're the liar BAC. Stop working for the traitors to this once great nation.

You are only embarrassing yourself and discrediting this forum, robin.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   15:24:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: robin (#101)

Until tomorrow, I've had my fun for today toying with the shill.

Keep hammering ;)

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   15:26:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: intotheabyss, ALL (#99)

As the velocity of the building increases so does the build up of your so called pressure.

But the velocity of collapse doesn't continue increasing all the way to the ground.

In fact, it reaches a steady state very early in the collapse.

You will not find the truth on a foundation of misinformation.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   15:26:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: BeAChooser (#100)

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, 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!?!?

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   15:28:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: robin (#101)

This nation sad to say is slipping (see below)

intotheabyss  posted on  2007-02-22   15:28:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: BeAChooser (#102)

Pure projection. No one has blocked my posts. How many have you on bozo now?

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   15:29:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: BeAChooser (#100)

On Sept 14, a demolition expert who works for the Pentagon, professor Van Romero, said that upon his viewing of the collapse videos, he believed that it was a controlled demolition. Prof Romero later retracted his statement in mysterious circumstances, refusing to say why and refusing to offer any alternative scenario, simply saying that he wasn't prepared to say what did or didn't happen, and didn't want to talk about it anymore.

http://911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51

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   15:35:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (109 - 230) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest