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: 19811
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 (1-165) not displayed.
.
.
.
#166. To: intotheabyss, Diana (#165)
My first thoughts when I read his post. Perfect Diana!
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Not all floors were 'blown.' The falling floors would have - if anything - created a compressed air cushion below, slowing the collapse, add the physical resistance of the lower structure; particularly the outer shell. Thus, only controlled demolition of the core 47 steel columns in each of the towers could have provided the documented free-fall rate. WTC-7 is similar; requiring controlled demolition.
It almost feels silly arguing this anymore. It equates to arguing - Why do kids have to buy bigger clothes as they get older. Do the clothes shrink or do the kids get bigger? It really is that obvious to any non-shill with an IQ above that of a moron.
I think they were, or otherwise there would have been some concrete in the pile that was more than just dust.
God is always good! I agree. BUT - if the troll (BAC) is being continuously fed, it has to be re- hashed. Otherwise BAC's disinformation tactics become effective.
Or so you claim.
You said this was obvious. I even seem to recall you calling (over at LP) structural engineers around the world morons for not seeing this. Is that what they are, Ricky? Morons? ROTFLOL!
You didn't the joke? Lighten up, Diana. ROTFLOL!
Yep, they sure the heck are. When the truth is revealed see how many contracts they get then to build even an outhouse!
God is always good! Or shills.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Only controlled demolition of the core 47 steel columns in each of the towers could have provided the documented free-fall rate. Deal with it, BAC!
Don't be silly, Diana. Do you honestly think they'd pay anyone a living wage to worry about the nonsense spouted here at FD4UM? ROTFLOL!
Yes, I do believe our government which prints money at a furious pace now that M3 money supply is no longer being reported can afford to pay whatever it takes to help keep the lid on the truth of 9/11 from reaching the general population.
God is always good! Why'd you leave out what I wrote between "demolitions." and "because"? When you leave out something you should probably note it with a "... skip ..." so folks don't get confused by your posts.
ROTFLOL!
Could explain why they have been printing so much money since 9/11. They go into detail in the International Forecaster (Robert Chapman) on how M3 is no longer being reported and how much money the printing presses have been churning out.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
As I noted to tom007, I meant exactly what I wrote: 417 meters * 2 = 1/2 9.8 t^^2 ... t = 13.05 seconds because I was dealing with the case of a tower TWICE as tall as the WTC towers. And you'll note that the answer demonstrates that RickyJ (who once labeled anyone who can't see that the WTC tower collapses are demolitions a moron) was wrong when he claimed it would take 16.31 seconds.
No, Diana, real scientists and engineers know how to use the equations to get the answer right. And they don't think bombs brought down the WTC and damaged the Pentagon.
Ahhh ... another who, like RickyJ, must think that 99.99999 percent of the structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world are morons. ROTFLOL!
Refer to post #175
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Common sense doesn't require a degree, BAC. Deal with it! (Asshole.)
you didn't get my point obviously from the post above. When you wrote 9.8 pertaining to gravity you didn't write m/s (meters per second) like tom007 did. One must always include units. Otherwise it's considered sloppy.
I think Diana has an extremely good point in 187. She knows a real scientist from a fake scientist. I happen to remember that she married a scientist. You BAC are NOT a scientist. you failed to put down the meters per second designation and without that designation it is meaningless and you are very sloppy. This just about dis-proves everything you've said on these subjects once & 4all.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
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, the seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell, 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 No, Diana. Sloppy is claiming to have an engineering degree and then claiming it would take an object, freefalling from the twice the height of the WTC, 16.31 seconds to reach the ground. Sloppy is claiming an expertise in steel and then claiming steel structural members are stronger in compression than tension.
I haven't claimed to be a scientist, Red. Well I suggest she ask her husband who got the right answer in that calculation. RickyJ or I? You don't know anything about me, Summa Cum Laude. But I know you believe in a lot of demonstrable nonsense. For whatever reason. Especially when I eat at Carl's Jr. ROTFLOL!
And he very clearly doesn't believe that WTC1 or WTC2 are controlled demolitions. Why do you ignore that? You mean loud noised interpreted as explosions. There were NO seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell (other than those associated with the aircraft impacts). Don't you believe Lerner-Lam? Not according to Mr Jowenko. You did watch the video, didn't you? ROTFLOL!
He based his opinion on the videos alone. If he had all the evidence, of the explosions heard by the firefighters, the seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell, 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!?!? Let's try this again. Mr Jowenko only watched the videos. How many times must this be repeated to you? You can never accuse anyone of being overly selective with your posts again, you do it yourself. There were NO seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell (other than those associated with the aircraft impacts). That is incorrect. You lose, try again. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html The Palisades seismic record shows that — as the collapses began — a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses. Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Like the last times, robin? ROTFLOL! Now there's a great source. ROTFLOL! Who do think recorded that seismic data, robin? Lerner-Lam and his staff. And they state categorically that the seismic record does NOT show signs of a demolition. Let me repeat what he said again: "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." In fact, the raw seismic data is available to any seismologist around the world. And guess what? There isn't ONE who has come forward to say there is something in that record that doesn't jibe with NIST's explanation of the collapses. This is simply FALSE, robin. The seismic traces when looked at with a broader time scale rather than that compressed one you posted clearly show a gradually increasing amplitude, with the peak oscillations near the middle of the waveform, not at the beginning as your source wants folks to believe. ImplosionWorld, experts on demolition, is on the record http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf) stating that "In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibrations during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration "spikes" documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data. This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presense of any unusual or abnormal vibration events." You simply don't know what you are talking about, robin, You are so eager to make the government bad guys, you will believe anything posted by conspiracists. It is sad.
http://www.rense.com/general60/seis.htm SEISMIC 'SPIKES' Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained. While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31. However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses. A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph. The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall. Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground. You still 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 Citing a AFP article written by Christopher Bollyn is not very convincing, robin. Bollyn is one of those who has done just what Lerner-Lam complained about. Or worse. I happen to think he's an outright liar who made up quotes from people since quotes in his articles could not be corroborated even by going to the individuals quoted (such as Lerner-Lam). Where do you think Lerner-Lam and his colleagues work, robin? ROTFLOL! This is what I mean about Bollyn LYING, robin. There are no unusual spikes at the beginning of each collapse. Neither Lerner-Lam or any seismologist around the world has said there were. And I quoted ImplosionWorld (experts in demolotion) stating categorically this is not true. If you look at the waveforms with broader timescales you will see this. Or are you too lazy to go look? This is absolutely untrue, robin. You will not find truth by mindlessly regurgitating other's lies.
A simple stopwatch says that all three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition - you can't get around that, BAC! You can manipulate and micro-manage information all you want; the harsh reality doesn't change.
417 meters * 2 = 1/2 9.8 t^^2 ... t = 13.05 seconds because I was dealing with the case of a tower TWICE as tall as the WTC towers. I was confused because I didn't read the whole thread, so couldn't figure out where the 417*2 came from.
No problem, I understand. But Diana doesn't.
Bollyn is quoting seismologists. 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 that is a statement by Skydrifter. and it is 110% true. and it disproves everything you've said on the subject. thanks BAC for trying - but you've come up short.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I am sloppy at Carls JR. too. what a coincidence. ROTFLOL!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Yay, someone else gets it right. It was not a "controlled" demolition at all. It was definitey a demolition however. The perps just didn't care where the debris landed.
BAC was so sloppy, or rather ignorant, he actually questioned why it was necessary to even have a calculation that proves the towers came down as the governemnt says. NIST made up fake computer models until they got the result they were looking for, but NIST didn't use that because they knew it was BS so they just said it was obvious from the video. LOL! On top of that I see now BAC got the same equation wrong twice. Apparently he doesn't learn from past mistakes, or have a clue what it is that he is talking about in the first place. He has no credibility around here, I doubt he had much at LP either.
God is always good! Whatever... if that makes you feel better to think that then go ahead. It's just a simple calculation that anyone who took physics 101 can do. I guess you didn't like me pointing that out about the units, but it's good to remember, and it's a bad habit not to include them.
Yes, using the correct units when doing an equation is important. Otherwise you could end up with bad data. :) NASA engineers figured this out the hard way when they didn't convert inches to meters and wasted a multi-million dollar probe to Mars.
God is always good!
Comments (207 - 230) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestDid your cohorts at ROFLOL! Command Center give YOU a little help with that??
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#167. To: RickyJ, Critter Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#153)
The semi-vacuum was created by the explosives clearing the way for the building to fall in the time it did.
#168. To: SKYDRIFTER (#167)
Thus, only controlled demolition of the core 47 steel columns in each of the towers could have provided the documented free-fall rate.
#169. To: SKYDRIFTER (#167)
Not all floors were 'blown.'
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#170. To: intotheabyss, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#168)
It almost feels silly arguing this anymore.
#171. To: innieway (#150)
A real life practical building. I've done it.
#172. To: RickyJ, ALL (#153)
Both of the towers exploded from top down. There must of been tons of explosives in it. Not a normal controlled demolition at all.
#173. To: Diana, ALL (#154)
"Well said ... especially that part about "philosophical PHD's"."
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?
#174. To: BeAChooser (#172)
I even seem to recall you calling (over at LP) structural engineers around the world morons for not seeing this.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#175. To: BeAChooser (#172)
Is that what they are, Ricky? Morons?
#176. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#173)
#177. To: Diana, ALL (#156)
BeAChooser are you a paid shill?
#178. To: BeAChooser (#177)
(Edited)
Do you honestly think they'd pay anyone a living wage to worry about the nonsense spouted here at FD4UM?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#179. To: Diana, ALL (#158)
Diana supposedly quoting me - 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. because Jowenko appears to have some rather kooky ideas.
#180. To: BeAChooser (#179)
Why'd you leave out what I wrote between "demolitions." and "because"?
#181. To: RickyJ (#178)
Yes, I do believe our government which prints money at a furious pace now that M3 money supply is no longer being reported can afford to pay whatever it takes to help keep the lid on the truth of 9/11 from reaching the general population.
#182. To: Diana, tom007, RickyJ, ALL (#161)
tom007 - Wouldn't that be, if H= 417m,
tom007 - t= (417m*2/9.8m/s^2)1/2, T=9.22?
At least you included your units, he didn't.
He should know better if he is so smart.
#183. To: Diana, ALL (#162)
Real scientists and engineers always include units in their equations.
#184. To: intotheabyss, RickyJ, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#168)
SKYDRIFTER - Thus, only controlled demolition of the core 47 steel columns in each of the towers could have provided the documented free-fall rate.
It really is that obvious to any non-shill with an IQ above that of a moron.
#185. To: BeAChooser (#184)
#186. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#184)
Ahhh ... another who, like RickyJ, must think that 99.99999 percent of the structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world are morons. ROTFLOL!
#187. To: BeAChooser (#183)
No, Diana, real scientists and engineers know how to use the equations to get the answer right.
#188. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#184)
#189. To: BeAChooser (#179)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#190. To: Diana, RickyJ, innieway, ALL (#187)
Otherwise it's considered sloppy.
#191. To: Red Jones, Diana, RickyJ, ALL (#188)
She knows a real scientist from a fake scientist.
I happen to remember that she married a scientist.
You BAC are NOT a scientist.
you are very sloppy.
#192. To: robin, ALL (#189)
HE VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT WTC7 IS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!!!
WHY DO YOU IGNORE THAT!!!
If he had all the evidence, of the explosions heard by the firefighters,
the seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell
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.
#193. To: BeAChooser (#192)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#194. To: robin, ALL (#193)
"There were NO seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell (other than those associated with the aircraft impacts)."
That is incorrect. You lose, try again.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html
The Palisades seismic record shows
The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses,
#195. To: BeAChooser (#194)
(Edited)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#196. To: robin, ALL (#195)
http://www.rense.com/general60/seis.htm
Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades,
While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.
The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses
#197. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#196)
#198. To: BeAChooser (#182)
As I noted to tom007, I meant exactly what I wrote:
#199. To: tom007, Diana, ALL (#198)
I was confused because I didn't read the whole thread, so couldn't figure out where the 417*2 came from.
#200. To: BeAChooser (#196)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#201. To: BeAChooser (#194)
A simple stopwatch says that all three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition - you can't get around that, BAC!
#202. To: BeAChooser (#191)
Especially when I eat at Carl's Jr
#203. To: RickyJ (#153)
Not a normal controlled demolition at all.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#204. To: Diana, BeAChooser, All (#187)
(Edited)
When you wrote 9.8 pertaining to gravity you didn't write m/s (meters per second) like tom007 did. One must always include units. Otherwise it's considered sloppy.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#205. To: BeAChooser, tom007, RickyJ (#199)
No problem, I understand. But Diana doesn't.
#206. To: Diana (#205)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
.
.
.