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: 19528
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 208.
#3. To: robin, ALL (#0)
I've decided this should be posted on any 9/11 conspiracy thread that suggests something other than planes caused the WTC and Pentagon damage:
I'm just curious. Do you have a low intellect, like to be a troll or do you get paid for your dellusions.
I vote for all three.
I think you are right. He apparently just likes attention (negative or possitive). Because if he is a shill his job is hopeless here.
Since you obviously know so much about Steven Jones and WTC 7 ... http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
Are ANY of them structural engineers; demolition experts; experts in steel, fire, concrete or impact; seismologists; or macro-world physicists? Because Steven Jones certainly isn't.
It only takes a little logic and commonsense. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).
Ping to post 35.
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?
You're right, it doesn't. And don't expect an answer from the shill. I've asked the exact same thing - and the answer I got is "I don't intend to answer your question. I'm content to rely on the expertise of the tens of thousands of professionals around the world who have designed and built the world we live in and all its marvels. Unlike you, I'm not claiming expertise." Many people find it necessary to ridicule others who tell them things they do not understand. Since they do not have the knowledge to be able to figure things out for themselves, they simply rely upon others to do their thinking for them. BAC is content to say that a can of Pepsi has 12 ozs in it because that's what it says on the can - NOT because he can mathematically figure out the volume of a cylindrical container. That's why he vehemently attempts to discredit mathematicians concerning the collapses. Mathematical formulas exist to show freefall time of an object over a certain distance; as well as time of a fall considering the mass, resistance, gravitational pull, etc - thus mathematics are VERY relevant in the collapses, and mathematicians would have a HIGHLY RELEVANT level of expertise in uncovering the truth irrelevant of any other level of expertise they may have in the matter. Thus when a mathematician claims it is IMPOSSIBLE for the collapses to have happened in the time frame in which they did, under the circumstances of the "official story" - THAT CANNOT BE DISMISSED AS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY AREN'T STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING EXPERTS!!! 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...
But the videos explain it in a way a child could understand. It takes less than high school physics to comprehend the free fall explanation that is available in detail. But his argument is that since govt engineers ( who were bribed and blackmailed to ) say that the obvious is not what happened, that makes their explanation true. What's the name of that guy who has an award going for anyone who can prove the govt's theory?
Maybe BAC can win the $1,000,000 reward I heard about for proving the official story. Although having a goose brain might make it really challenging
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
He also neglected to include all units such as for gravity. Real scientists and engineers always include units in their equations.
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.
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.
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.
Says the guy who told everyone that a tower twice as high as the WTC towers would take 16.31 seconds to collapse at freefall speed in a vacuum. ROTFLOL! Says the guy who claims all the structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world are morons because they don't see that the WTC towers were obvious demolitions. ROTFLOL! Then you should be able to just ignore me, Ricky ... as I go around demolishing every thread you folks try to start about bombs in the WTC towers and no Flight 77 at the Pentagon. ROTFLOL!
There are no replies to Comment # 208. End Trace Mode for Comment # 208.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: BeAChooser (#3)
#15. To: intotheabyss (#4)
Do you have a low intellect, like to be a troll or do you get paid for your dellusions.
#18. To: angle (#15)
#22. To: intotheabyss, ALL (#18)
#25. To: BeAChooser, christine, Jethro Tull, angle, robin, lodwick (#22)
#32. To: intotheabyss, ALL (#25)
I thought you might like to see an extensive list of "kooks" who don't believe the official story.
#33. To: BeAChooser (#32)
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.
The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the “official” assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).
Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!" http://impactglassman
Heikki Kurttila, PhD – Safety Engineer and Accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority (TUKES), Finland.
Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.
I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. Now some people will say that’s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder." http://video.go
#38. To: robin, ALL (#33)
#39. To: BeAChooser (#38)
#48. To: 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 (#39)
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?
#53. To: innieway (#48)
#63. To: robin, innieway (#53)
What's the name of that guy who has an award going for anyone who can prove the govt's theory?
#71. To: intotheabyss, innieway, robin, ALL (#63)
Maybe BAC can win the $1,000,000 reward I heard about for proving the official story.
#73. To: BeAChooser (#71)
13) Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds.
#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.
#79. To: BeAChooser (#78)
#82. To: robin, ALL (#79)
There were 3 buildings, the times are slightly different. They all fell close to free fall.
#124. To: BeAChooser (#82)
There were 3 buildings, the times are slightly different. They all fell close to free fall.
#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?
#144. To: BeAChooser (#129)
WTC
#162. To: RickyJ, tom007, robin, BeAChooser (#144)
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!
#183. To: Diana, ALL (#162)
Real scientists and engineers always include units in their equations.
#187. To: BeAChooser (#183)
No, Diana, real scientists and engineers know how to use the equations to get the answer right.
#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.
#208. To: RickyJ, ALL (#204)
BAC was so sloppy,
or rather ignorant,
He has no credibility around here,
Replies to Comment # 208.