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:19358 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:
It takes courage to step forward and be a target of the most evil regime in our nation's history. It's easy to go along with the Bush Cabal.
Why doesn't MSM ever show the fall of WTC7?
Why would esteemed engineers and scientists and patriotic ex-Intel go against the official govt explanation (a far-fetched conspiracy in itself)? Why would they stick their necks out and become a target unless it was for a very good reason?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
You've just proven your blatant dishonesty or ignorance or nacisissism or all combined by attacking the credentials of these scientists. It also shows you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Congratulations, you've just proven your lack of authority to speak of these topic in a big way.
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.
Really dumb move attempting to discredit such people.
Such chutzpah is what will bring you and your ilk down.
Really dumb move attempting to discredit such people.
Such chutzpah is what will bring you and your ilk down.
Looking at the current state of affairs in the world is indicative of collective ignorance that encompasses all stratums of society. From the mindless mall waddlers to the philosophical PHD's clogging the Universities ... the evidence is overwhelming that ignorance rules.
BeAlooser typifies a mindset particular to an ethnicity that has demonstrated a parasitic propensity for thousands of years.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
#46. To: BeAChooser, robin, rowdee, SKYDRIFTER, Kamala, RickyJ, Red Jones, All (#24)
Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review.
The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.
In academia, private industry and especially govt research institutions, there is more than a little cut-throat activity among competing scientists, not to mention a strict protocol where one does not talk about certain things, they must tow the line or else. They often compare it to belonging to the communist party in that way.
THAT is why so few who are currently employed refuse to come out and testify, they know they will be ridiculed and most likely fired for doing so, along with having their reputation smeared, especially by envious peers who will be more than happy to take advantage of such a situation to further their own careers.
David Griscom – research physicist. Loves Griffin. Notice that he studied at Brown (probably the most liberal school in the country). Worked at the Naval Research Laboratory for 33 years. But doing what? Working on structures? Steel? Fire? Demolition? No, he worked in the Optical Sciences Division. Researching the physics of silicon (for uses such as radiation shielding, waste management and fiber optics).
What does Brown being a "liberal" university have to do with their science department? Can you tell us the difference between a liberal physics class and a conservative physics class? How about a liberal math class vs. conservative math class? Could you explain these differences?
Your arrogance is simply astounding.
By the way, what are YOUR credentials to be speaking so certainly on all this? Are you a world-renouned structural engineer?
You appear to claim one must be one in order to comment on this topic with any authority.
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...
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
Of course they don't, they don't want to lose their funding!
BINGO
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
THAT is why so few who are currently employed refuse to come out and testify, they know they will be ridiculed and most likely fired for doing so, along with having their reputation smeared, especially by envious peers who will be more than happy to take advantage of such a situation to further their own careers.
The politics in academia are hideous, good point.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
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?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
$100,000 reward: Prove "official" 9/11 story One man of means' attempt to set the record straight The details are still being worked out but you can tell anyone who believes boxcutter-wielding Arabs took down the Twin Towers, took out the Pentagon and crashed a plane over Pennsylvania that there's $100,000 waiting for them if they can support with facts and evidence the government explanation of 9/11. It's a good deal for 9/11 truth seekers because we know California millionaire Jimmie Walter will be able to keep his money; if publicized correctly it will be a bad deal for the Bush administration because enough people with credentials who believe the official will try, unsuccessfully to prove the Bush administration's "magic Arab" theory.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Yea, it blew my mind when I first found it, to see so many credentialed professionals from military, media and academia all either questioning the official story or flat out saying it was an inside job.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
You've just proven your blatant dishonesty or ignorance or nacisissism or all combined by attacking the credentials of these scientists. It also shows you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Yea, it blew my mind when I first found it, to see so many credentialed professionals from military, media and academia all either questioning the official story or flat out saying it was an inside job.
Only a sub-70 IQ type would still buy the official story today.
We still don't have all the details of how things happened, but we do how things didn't happen.
The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.
Of course they don't, they don't want to lose their funding!
Are you saying the structural engineers at BYU know that it was a controlled demolition that killed about 3000 Americans but aren't saying word one about that because of the all mighty dollar? Why that would make them truly EVIL, wouldn't it, Diana? Perhaps you should write them and tell them what you think of them.
Thus when a mathematician claims it is IMPOSSIBLE for the collapses to have happened in the time frame in which they did,
Given a bunch of assumptions about the resistance of the structure. Assumptions they aren't qualified to make. And by the way, except for their name, only ONE of the mathematicians in the list offers any details about what they actually believe concerning 9/11. How do you know they believe there were bombs in the towers?
BAC is incapable of thinking on his own. My theory is that he has a skull about 3½ inches thick all the way around which leaves room for a brain about the size of a walnut - roughly the size of a goose's...
Come on innieway ... is that the best you can come up with in defense of your patriot's list?
Maybe BAC can win the $1,000,000 reward I heard about for proving the official story.
I guess you didn't hear that the contest contains some rules and requirements that make it IMPOSSIBLE to win the reward. Here's one:
13) Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds.
That is a complete non-starter and THE REASON why it is a waste of time to enter that contest. Because the towers did not collapse in 8.4 seconds and therefore it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to prove this. Videos taken that day prove clearly that it took the upper floors of the towers as much as 15 seconds to reach ground level.
Would you like some more examples of how dishonest the authors of the contest were?
13) Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds.
Was broken apart, not reach ground level.
Try again.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Given a bunch of assumptions about the resistance of the structure.
Boy you (BAC) really are dumb aren't you.
(felt compelled to put his name in parenthesis to facilitate his limited intellect)
Look there was aprox. 440 tons of steel on each floor of the building and there is this little thing called inertia. In a pancake type fall the floors above would have to crash into the floors below. Prior to the crash the lower floor had a velocity of zero, so the upper floor's mass velocity would cause an acceleration of the lower floor from zero to a speed approaching that of the initial upper floor speed. This sequence of events would repeat 80 something times. Each successive acceleration of the lower floor would be greater due to the increased mass of the material falling on it until it reached the last floor. The repeated resistance (yes it does exist no matter how dumb you are) of 440 tons+ (plus all the other material involved)of inertial starting at zero velocity would slow the fall a hell of a lot more than free fall.
Get a life or a brain and maybe both but don't continue down this absurd path reasoning.
13) Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds.
Was broken apart, not reach ground level.
Try again.
Also from the contest rules:
The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds though the complete settling of the building lasted slightly longer, perhaps as long as 12 seconds,
The towers took well in excess of 8.4 seconds to collapse to ground level. Photos taken ten seconds into the event show that alumimum cladding and sections of outer columns that are free falling outside the periphery of the towers have not yet reached the ground and are well ahead of the collapsing level of the tower. Videos also prove this.
You will never find the truth, robin, on a foundation of misinformation.
There were 3 buildings, the times are slightly different. They all fell close to free fall.
Give up supporting the liars, the truth will set you free.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
The repeated resistance (yes it does exist no matter how dumb you are) of 440 tons+ (plus all the other material involved)of inertial starting at zero velocity would slow the fall a hell of a lot more than free fall.
WTC 1 and WTC 2 did not collapse at free fall rates.
You will never find the truth on a foundation of lies.