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: 19707
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 (1-114) not displayed.
.
.
.
#115. To: robin, IndieTX, ALL (#109)
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!
* Graduate and undergraduate courses in Solid State Physics and Particle Physics for the Physics Department * Course in Explosives Surety for the Chemical Engineering Department From your own info on Van Romero. Obviously, if he teaches these courses, he is an expert. 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 http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush New Mexico Tech Vice President Romero Named a Top Lobbyist by George Zamora SOCORRO, N.M., Dec. 18, 2003 – New Mexico Tech Vice President Van Romero has been tapped as one of “six lobbyists who made an impact in 2003” in an article featured in this month’s issue of Influence magazine. Romero, who is in charge of research and economic development at the research university in Socorro, was profiled in “The Players,” a special year-end feature in the national magazine which identifies a handful of prominent Washington, D.C. lobbyists who made a mark in 2003. “From his perch 2,000 miles outside of the Beltway, this physics Ph.D. understands exactly how Washington works,” the article states. “A major chunk of his job involves lobbying for federal government funding, and if the 2003 fiscal year was any indication, Romero is a superstar.” Romero is credited in the article with being instrumental in procuring about $56 million worth of appropriations for New Mexico Tech for the current fiscal year. This notable achievement also recently caught the eye of editors at The Chronicle of Higher Education as they ranked the university first in the nation among institutions of higher education that receive federal earmarks. In the article, Stephen Traver, a legislative aide for U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), credits Romero’s success in Washington with his having adopted a lobbying approach where “he starts with a problem that the federal government has as a priority, and then looks for solutions to that problem.” The article in Influence also points out that “Van Romero is proof that the client can be the best lobbyist.”
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
yep http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html PM quotes Romero denying that his retraction was bought: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." PM fails to mention that Van Romero was named chairman of the Domestic Preparedness Consortium in January 2001, that his Institute received $15 million for an anti-terrorism program in 2002, or that Influence Magazine tapped him as one of six top lobbyists in 2003, having secured $56 million for New Mexico Tech. [19] [20] [21] [22]
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush ROTFLOL! Do you know what solid state physics and particle physics are? Do you know what Explosives Surety is? Apparently not. ROTFLOL! Like I said, you are only embarrassing yourself.
Education * Ph.D., Physics, State University of New York, 1991 http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html Do you know what a Ph.D., in Physics is? http://www.nmt.edu/catalog/2004/engineering/chemical.pdf Here is a description of the class in Explosive Surety that Romero teaches: ChE 475, Explosives Surety, 3 cr, 3 cl hrs 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 834 meters = 1/2 9.8 t^^2 ... t = 9.23 seconds. Confuse me BAC, you couldn't if you tried. By the way, you are a little off there in that calculation, just a little. LOL!
God is always good! Van Romero changed his mind real quick. He knows who pays his salary. Steven Jones on the other hand is sticking to his story even after being effectively forced from his job. True patriots are few and far between, I think Jones is one of them.
God is always good! And Christopher Bollyn, who is being hounded, is not wavering.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Looks like you are confused. This is the post you meant to respond to ... right, smart guy? ************ #130. To: innieway, ALL (#129) Sorry, that's 417 meters = 1/2 9.8 t^^2 ... t = 9.23 seconds. Wouldn't want to confuse you. ROTFLOL! BeAChooser posted on 2007-02-22 19:43:08 ET **************
You can't take the fool out of a fool.
That sounds like something George Bush would say.
God is always good! Suuuuurrre, you have. Tell ya what. I'll design and build a building, and you design and build one. A real life practical building. I've done it. READY???????? (Don't forget, you get to build it too) Yet you appear to have thought the strength of steel structural elements in compression is higher than in tension. Go figure... YOU have PAPER..... I have and work with steel everyday.
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
No BAC, you just goofed up there. Just like I goofed up in the first calculation I did. You were trying to make fun of my goof up yet goofed up in the same post to do that. Really pitiful.
God is always good! You're talking about a vacuum, right? I missed the vacuum at the WTC, on 9-11.
The semi-vacuum was created by the explosives clearing the way for the building to fall in the time it did. Both of the towers exploded from top down. There must of been tons of explosives in it. Not a normal controlled demolition at all. The show factor for the cameras they knew would be there was apparent.
God is always good! Are you saying you don't know the difference between a PhD in philosophy and a PhD in mathematics? You think they are the same?
I think it's quite possible that he is a shill, that we are supporting him with our tax dollars, although if that is the case I don't understand why they don't plant him at a larger forum such as democratic underground, though possibly one of his co-workers is already stationed there. Or he could just be some weird guy, it's hard to say.
Comments (156 - 230) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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,
#138. To: BeAChooser (#136)
Courses Taught
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#139. To: All (#138)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#140. To: robin (#138)
No wonder he recounted.
#141. To: angle (#140)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#142. To: robin, ALL (#138)
Courses Taught
* Graduate and undergraduate courses in Solid State Physics and Particle Physics for the Physics Department
* Course in Explosives Surety for the Chemical Engineering Department
From your own info on Van Romero.
Obviously, if he teaches these courses, he is an expert.
You lose, try again.
#143. To: BeAChooser (#142)
(Edited)
Van D. Romero, Ph.D.
* M.S., Physics, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 1979
* B.S., Physics, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 1977
Prerequisite: Upper-class standing or consent of instructor
Offered spring semester
An introduction to explosives and other energetic materials. The basic chemical compositions, properties and environmental effects of commercial, military, and improvised (terrorist) explosives and some pyrotechnics will be compared. The basic physics of shock waves and detonation. Explosive effects, blast detection, tagging and environmental issues. Case studies or recent bombings will be used to describe a variety of terrorist approaches. Safety in handling of explosive materials and classifications for transportation and storage.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#144. To: BeAChooser (#129)
WTC
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#145. To: robin (#143)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#146. To: RickyJ (#145)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#147. To: RickyJ, ALL (#144)
WTC
834 meters = 1/2 9.8 t^^2 ... t = 9.23 seconds.
Confuse me BAC, you couldn't if you tried. By the way, you are a little off there in that calculation, just a little. LOL!
WTC
834 meters = 1/2 9.8 t^^2 ... t = 9.23 seconds.
#148. To: RickyJ, robin, ALL (#146)
RickyJ - Steven Jones on the other hand is sticking to his story even after being effectively forced from his job.
robin - And Christopher Bollyn, who is being hounded, is not wavering.
#149. To: BeAChooser (#148)
You can't take the fool out of a fool.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#150. To: BeAChooser (#126)
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.
#151. To: BeAChooser (#147)
Looks like you are confused.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#152. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#147)
t = 9.23 seconds.
#153. To: SKYDRIFTER (#152)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#154. To: BeAChooser, noone222 (#65)
Well said ... especially that part about "philosophical PHD's".
#155. To: intotheabyss, robin (#87)
I'll mark you down as a vote for shill. (post #83)
.
.
.