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: 19578
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
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-96) not displayed.
.
.
.
#97. To: RickyJ, ALL (#94)
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.
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 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.
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.
Extended version available here:
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush You are only embarrassing yourself and discrediting this forum, robin.
Until tomorrow, I've had my fun for today toying with the shill. Keep hammering ;)
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.
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 This nation sad to say is slipping (see below)
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 Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush WTC1 and WTC2 weres no ordinary demolitions. http://www.rense.com/general67/9118.htm http://letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html THE EXPERTS SPEAK OUT Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told the American Free Press, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated." According to Lerner-Lam, "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small." A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of Univ. of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground explosion appears on a seismograph. Another seismologist, Won-Young Kim, stated that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away. These blasts are caused by 80,000 lbs. of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the huge towers. ------------ A call was placed to Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) who arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation American Free Press asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. What could have caused those box columns of 4-inch thick steel to melt like this?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Did you notice the interviewer tell Jowenko that Silverstein said "pull it down"? That's untrue, isn't it, robin. Perhaps that's an indication that the interviewer wasn't entirely honest or forthcoming with Mr Jowenko? Did you notice Jowenko estimate it would take 30 to 40 men to bring down WTC 7 in the time that was available (after the impact)? Any evidence at all that 30 or 40 men were there busy doing that? Any reports by ANYONE? Oh wait, a little later he says it was more work than 30 men. And then after being told the building was on fire says he doesn't know how long. How many, robin? Did you notice Jowenko telling the interviewer that the smoke coming up from the bottom of WTC 7 were NOT charges? Oh well, there goes another conspiracy theory. Did you notice Jowenko saying repeatedly, "I don't know the building"? Did you notice him saying he didn't follow the government reports (referring to FEMA's report on the WTC)? Did you notice all the wild speculations by Jowenko about insurance companies and America? Did you notice that the speculation here is that Silverstein brought down WTC 7 because it would be too expensive to fix. Not that it was part of some massive government conspiracy. Did you notice Jowenko saying that Bush was actually rather brave to stand on the rubble at the WTC so soon after the collapse? You will never find the truth on a foundation of disinformation, robin.
Here's the name of some who say they weren't. Here is one of your "experts" at NIST. What a joke these idiots are. Tell me, do they pay you well Chooser? God is always good! And according to the link I supplied, he stated that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were NOT controlled demolitions. Why do you ignore THAT? Afterall, my challenge was for rickyj (and now you) to provide the name of one demolition expert who claims WTC 1 and WTC 2 were brought down by explosives. I said nothing about WTC 7. And you and ricky called me a liar to claim no demolition expert has said WTC1 and WTC2 are controlled demolitions. But you haven't provided the name of an expert who has said that. Do you have one or not? If not, you owe me an apology.
False. Romero stated quite clearly why he retracted his first impression that the destruction was a demolition. He said he changed his story after looking at more detailed videos and the rest of the information that was gathered. Futhermore, Romero is NOT an demolition expert. Here is his resume: ************* http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html "Van D. Romero, Ph.D. ... snip ... Current Employment Since 1997: Vice President for Research and Economic Development, New Mexico Tech., Serves as chief official of the Research and Economic Development Division responsible for the encouragement, leadership, and support of research at the Institute and for the administrative and policy making activities of the division; offers dynamic research and administrative leadership to stimulate, coordinate, and provide support for the research at New Mexico Tech; acts as advocate for research within the Institute; serves as director of the Geophysical Research Center; manages the research support functions of the Research Division; serves as the Institute's representative and on-campus administrator for the Waste-Management Education and Research Consortium; acts as an external advocate and representative for New Mexico Tech's research activities; serves as mentor to new faculty to help them establish their research programs at the Institute; strongly encourages diversity and affirmative action; identifies research opportunities and actively encourages development of interdisciplinary research at the institute; ensures that high quality proposals are submitted by the Institute." Previous Experience 1995-1997: Director, Energetic Materials Research & Testing Center, Direct and manage a multi-disciplinary team of scientists, engineers, and staff involved in RDT&E programs in energetic materials. EMRTC provides a working laboratory for conducting research in support of both government and commercial programs in the areas of ordnance, explosives, propellants and other energetic materials. Facilities include over 30 separate test sites, gun ranges and research labs located within a 32 square mile field laboratory. Developed and implemented counter-terrorist program that benefits research and academic programs. 1994 - 1995: Senior Member Technical Staff, Sandia National Lab, Albuquerque, NM. Conducted Environmental Impact Assessment for Medical Isotope Production program. Program consisted of converting weapons program facility to produce radio-isotopes for medical usage. 1993 - 1994: Deputy Director of Environmental, Safety and Health Oversight; Manager, Hazardous Waste Programs, Superconducting Super Collider, Dallas, TX. Developed and implemented radiation protection policies compatible with DOE orders and CFR regulations, performed liaison activities with DOE, and provided technical direction to radiation and hazardous waste program. Responsible for the development and review of radiation transport calculations, shielding design, health physics procedures, mixed waste procedures, and environmental monitoring activities. Served as Chairman of the Laboratory's ALARA committee and member of DOE's R&D Laboratory Working Group (RADWG) Health Physics Procedures Committee. Responsible for RCRA compliance during project closure. 1979 - 1993: Manager, Thermal Hydraulic Programs, General Electric Knolls Atomic Power Lab, Schenectady, NY. Responsible for both the technical and personnel management of the group. Key participant in the long term planning and direction of both the research and the facilities construction and maintenance. Group responsibilities included thermodynamic and materials testing and analysis of fuel channels, steam generators, and in-core materials. This work determined the thermodynamic limits for the nuclear reactor which will power the next generation submarine scheduled for delivery at the turn of the century. In previous work as Lead Engineer, was responsible for the experimental fluid mechanics effort and developed LASER instrumentation and techniques for flow visualization and quantitative flow measurements. Additional experience includes the development, execution, and analysis of environmental impact testing of nuclear sub marines which includes radiation transport analysis, neutron detection, and gamma ray spectroscopy." Current Funded Research Activities * Experimental verification of the alpha-omega effect for galaxy formation with Los Alamos National Laboratories. Courses Taught * Graduate and undergraduate courses in Solid State Physics and Particle Physics for the Physics Department Patents Held * Procedure to study Bubble Evolution by correcting scattered LASER light and dynamic pressure signals ********** So we learn that at the time of 9/11 he wasn't even working in the field of explosives. We learn that for ONLY 2 or 3 years he ran a group that focused on ordnance, explosives and energetic materials ... and not so much the effects of them on structures but the characteristics of the explosives themselves. Certainly there is no mention of him or any organization he worked for working on explosive demolition of structures or buildings. And we learn that prior to 1995, he conducted Environmental Impact Assessments, implemented radiation protection policies and investigated thermodynamic limits for the nuclear reactors. That's hardly the resume of the explosives, demolition and structures *expert* you want him to be. In fact take a look at his publications. You won't find one word about demolition or structures in those titles. And hardly a mention of explosives. You seem to live in a world of misinformation, robin. Not a good foundation for finding the truth.
That proves nothing but that he is an idiot. Notice how shocked he was when it was pointed out to him that the building he just said was brought down with a controlled demolition was one that collapsed in New York on 9/11. You could literally see the fear in his eyes. He was clearly shaken up realizing he just made himself a target of the same people he was trying to avoid making mad. The perpetrators of 9/11. The guy is a coward and a idiot. Too dumb to know that WTC7 even collapsed on 9/11.
God is always good! But wait!!! I thought you folks have been telling us all along that they look just like other demolitions. ROTFLOL! Christopher Boyle, the hack journalist for AFP, lied and distorted the facts repeatedly in his articles about the WTC collapse and seismic data. Would you like to see what Lerner-Lam believes, robin? Here is what he told Popular Mechanics: "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." You will never find the true by quoting misinformation, robin. Now Mark Loizeaux is an honest to gosh demolition expert. And he says categorically that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were not controlled demolitions. You really should read this, robin: http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html IndieTX won't because he bozo'd himself. But you should ... if you want a foundation based on actual facts.
The guy is another idiot. You seem to love to quote idiots, I guess that makes you a super idiot.
God is always good! I have told you several times the qualifications I have that allow me to speak with some reasonable sense concerning the topic. I may not have a degree in structural engineering, HOWEVER I have designed and built buildings which have proven to be far superior to elements in the area compared to ones designed by "structural engineers"... I have qualifications in metalwork, including structural steel. I have gone back and made improvements on the designs of engineers (the likes of which you want to tout so highly.) Granted it may not have been the "structural engineers" involved in highrises; HOWEVER, according to you, ALL engineers are the shit concerning their field. REAL WORLD PROOF has shown to me this simply isn't the case. ON THE OTHER HAND - what have you given in defense of your stance other than "the 'experts' say so"??? You REFUSE to tell us what your personal qualifications or experiences are concerning the matter. For all we know, you're nothing more than a "gofer" in some toilet paper factory. Your drivel and ROTFLOL are tiresome, and as see-through as clean air. You come across as a meaningless shill devoid of the ability to think for yourself.
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
WTC7 is exactly like a controlled demolition. The demolitions WTC1 and WTC2 had enormous explosions with recorded seismic spikes. Weeks aferward there was hot molten steel, and evidence of thermite involved. The goverment toadies must agree with the government explanation, or they lose their jobs like the govt demolition expert Romero, who on 9/14 said they were demolitions. The only objectivity is found away from the Bush Cabal's govt, who has so much to hide.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Just the sort of credentials needed to pontificate authoritatively on what damaged the WTC and Pentagon. ROTFLOL! Let's take a look at his credentials, AGAIN: 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.
So you are admitting you are not qualified to speak on this topic, I'm impressed!
Your true colors are showing through with your condescending behavior. You'd better watch that if you want all those lurkers out there to think so highly of you.
You should know as that is your specialty. Telling on yourself again, that is good to see.
He just did!
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. Let's dissect this right quick... The claim was made that 3 buildings fell, all at close to free fall velocity. YOU claim this is a lie, citing 1 and 2 did NOT collapse at close to free fall velocity - BUT apparently do not dispute that building 7 did. If in fact 7 fell at close to free fall velocity - at a little less than half the height of the other 2, and at a time of roughly 7 seconds, that would put the free fall time of the other 2 at roughly 14 seconds (and by your own admissions elsewhere the time was about 15 seconds). You then go on to claim that towers in pure free fall more than twice as tall could have collapsed in the same amount of time... Apparently you didn't do so good in high school math did you?
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
Apparently you didn't do so good in high school math did you? You are right he is wrong, but not by much. It would take approx. 16.31 seconds for a building as twice as tall as the WTC to freefall with no resistance to its fall.
God is always good! I don't find that very convincing given the number of times I have had to correct you about basic engineering principles and the facts in this case. Suuuuurrre, you have. Yet you appear to have thought the strength of steel structural elements in compression is higher than in tension. Go figure...
Then why is only one demolition expert on record saying that ... and only after being led by the nose by a dishonest conspiracist as we saw in that video? No they didn't. And the folks with the education and experience to interpret seismic records categorically state that the records don't show a controlled demolition. I guess you haven't yet looked at this: http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html He's not a demolition expert. I provided his resume. Can't you read? You won't find truth if you base your search on disinformation, robin.
During which time he studied silicon. And worked on waste management and fiber optics problems. Not structures, impact, steel, fire, demolition, buckling, concrete, etc. He studied the MICRO BEHAVIOR of materials, Diana ... not the macro-behavior of structural materials. But if you want to tie your own credibility to him, be my guest. ROTFLOL!
ROTFLOL! Let me give you a little help, smart guy. s = 1/2 g t^^2 WTC 7 750 feet = 1/2 32.2 t^^2 ... t = 6.8 seconds WTC 834 meters = 1/2 9.8 t^^2 ... t = 9.23 seconds.
Sorry, that's 417 meters = 1/2 9.8 t^^2 ... t = 9.23 seconds. Wouldn't want to confuse you. ROTFLOL!
A stopwatch tells the only possible story BAC - you slimer, you! (Add the video/audio recordings and the truly qualified witness accounts.)
ROTFLOL! Note: WTC * 2 417 meters * 2 = 1/2 9.8 t^^2 ... t = 13.05 seconds.
A stopwatch tells the only possible story BAC - you slimer, you! (Add the video/audio recordings and the truly qualified witness accounts.)
http://911review.com/coverup/romero.html You lose, 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 Wouldn't that be, if H= 417m, t= (417m*2/9.8m/s^2)1/2, T=9.22?
Sure, the center does study those things. But Romero didn't. I posted HIS OWN resume, robin. Show me ANYWHERE in that resume experience in the effects of explosions on structures. You lose, try again. By the way, you are only embarrassing yourself with this.
Not if you are doing a building twice as tall as the WTC. RickyJ said that would take over 16 seconds to reach the ground. Ooooops!
Comments (138 - 230) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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.
#98. To: BeAChooser (#96)
(Edited)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#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?
#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)
#101. To: All (#95)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#102. To: robin, ALL (#98)
You're the liar BAC. Stop working for the traitors to this once great nation.
#103. To: robin (#101)
#104. To: intotheabyss, ALL (#99)
As the velocity of the building increases so does the build up of your so called pressure.
#105. To: BeAChooser (#100)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#106. To: robin (#101)
#107. To: BeAChooser (#102)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#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.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#109. To: BeAChooser (#108)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#110. To: robin, ALL (#101)
Extended version available here:
#111. To: BeAChooser (#97)
(Edited)
And the name of a demolition expert who has said they were controlled demolitions?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#112. To: robin, rickyj, ALL (#105)
HE VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT WTC7 IS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!!!
WHY DO YOU IGNORE THAT!!!
#113. To: robin, ALL (#108)
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.
* Develop groundwater activation model that can be used to optimize the design for acceleration production of tritium with DOE.
* Seismic source investigation, modeling and characterization of currently deployed explosive sources, design and computational testing of improved explosive sources, experimental verification and validation of improved sources - Western Geophysical (students - recruiting, post-doc and graduate in Geophysics).
* Resusable blast test fixture, investigate explosive impact on wide-body aircraft with FAA.
* Course in Explosives Surety for the Chemical Engineering Department
#114. To: BeAChooser (#112)
And according to the link I supplied, he stated that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were NOT controlled demolitions.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#115. To: robin, IndieTX, ALL (#109)
WTC1 and WTC2 weres no ordinary demolitions.
Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told the American Free Press, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated." According to Lerner-Lam, "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."
A call was placed to Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.
American Free Press asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
#116. To: BeAChooser (#115)
"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."
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#117. To: BeAChooser (#69)
Come on innieway ... is that the best you can come up with in defense of your patriot's list?
#118. To: BeAChooser (#115)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#119. To: BeAChooser (#64)
(Edited)
An expert in silicon and waste management.
#120. To: BeAChooser (#65)
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.
#121. To: BeAChooser, robin, All (#102)
You are only embarrassing yourself and discrediting this forum, robin.
#122. To: BeAChooser, robin (#110)
You will never find the truth on a foundation of disinformation, robin.
#123. To: RickyJ, BeAChooser, robin (#111)
God has a way to make the guilty reveal themselves.
#124. To: BeAChooser (#82)
There were 3 buildings, the times are slightly different. They all fell close to free fall.
#125. To: innieway (#124)
You then go on to claim that towers in pure free fall more than twice as tall could have collapsed in the same amount of time...
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#126. To: innieway, ALL (#117)
I have told you several times the qualifications I have that allow me to speak with some reasonable sense concerning the topic.
I have designed and built buildings which have proven to be far superior to elements in the area compared to ones designed by "structural engineers"...
I have qualifications in metalwork, including structural steel.
#127. To: robin, ALL (#118)
WTC7 is exactly like a controlled demolition.
The demolitions WTC1 and WTC2 had enormous explosions with recorded seismic spikes.
Weeks aferward there was hot molten steel, and evidence of thermite involved.
the govt demolition expert Romero
#128. To: Diana, ALL (#119)
Let's take a look at his credentials, AGAIN:
David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.
#129. To: innieway, ALL (#124)
If in fact 7 fell at close to free fall velocity - at a little less than half the height of the other 2, and at a time of roughly 7 seconds, that would put the free fall time of the other 2 at roughly 14 seconds (and by your own admissions elsewhere the time was about 15 seconds). You then go on to claim that towers in pure free fall more than twice as tall could have collapsed in the same amount of time... Apparently you didn't do so good in high school math did you?
#130. To: innieway, ALL (#129)
WTC
834 meters = 1/2 9.8 t^^2 ... t = 9.23 seconds.
#131. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#129)
#132. To: RickyJ, innieway, ALL (#125)
innieway to BeAChooser - You then go on to claim that towers in pure free fall more than twice as tall could have collapsed in the same amount of time...
innieway to BeAChooser - Apparently you didn't do so good in high school math did you?
RickyJ to innieway - You are right he is wrong, but not by much. It would take approx. 16.31 seconds for a building as twice as tall as the WTC to freefall with no resistance to its fall.
#133. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#132)
#134. To: BeAChooser (#127)
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#135. To: BeAChooser (#132)
417 meters * 2 = 1/2 9.8 t^^2 ... t = 13.05 seconds.
#136. To: robin, ALL (#134)
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
#137. To: tom007, RickyJ, ALL (#135)
Wouldn't that be, if H= 417m,
.
.
.