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: 19851
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 (1-60) not displayed.
.
.
.
#61. To: noone222 (#44)
Thanks, this had me rolling :)
That's your defense of them? That's it? ROTFLOL!
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
An expert in silicon and waste management. Just the sort of credentials needed to pontificate authoritatively on what damaged the WTC and Pentagon. ROTFLOL!
Well said ... especially that part about "philosophical PHD's". 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.
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.
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.
That’s why the shills focus on the former. They certainly can't defend the latter.
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? Come on innieway ... is that the best you can come up with in defense of your patriot's list?
We still don't have all the details of how things happened, but we do know how things didn't happen. it's really just as simple as that.
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?
You won't find the truth on a foundation of lies.
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 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.
Because the towers did not collapse in 8.4 seconds You need to revisit basic reading skills.
I almost hate to admit it but I'm having too much fun. :P
That is an excellent screen name for you. But you should omit the spaces.
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 WTC 1 and WTC 2 did not collapse at free fall rates. You will never find the truth on a foundation of lies.
Yes that would make them evil if they really thought that the towers were brought down with a explosives yet would not admit it. However it could be that they are not evil, but rather stupid. I think you give structural engineers way too much credit for being smart. The ones I know aren't exactly rocket scientists.
God is always good! 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.
We should have a vote, not on booting BAC(he is too much fun) but on why he hold the beliefs that he does. What do you guys think? Is he just seriously mentally challenged? Is he psychologically challenged (troll)? Is he a shill through and through? Or is he a combination of several of these?
The exposives detonating are visible in small plumes of smoke from the sides of the buildings, just under the line of fall. There is a name for this in the demolition industry, that is so well acquainted with them. http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/explosives.html
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush So you have no specialty. What do you yo do all day, post propaganda for your evil masters? You have shown very little ability to reason, you rely on idiots to think for you, and are quite frankly a bore. You can roll on the floor and laugh for your evil masters all day, maybe they will give you a treat.
God is always good! That's my vote.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush I'll mark you down as a vote for shill. (post #83)
A pancake fall, each floor hitting the one under it, would have taken much longer than times recorded. These building fell like a demolition, especially WTC7, which was never hit, and had only very small fires. They look like a demolition, they have explosives going off, just under the line of fall, just like a demolition; they are demolitions.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Is he a shill through and through? That's my vote. That's two for shill, do I have any more votes?
He's a paid shill.
God is always good! 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? Where do you think that air went as the building collapsed, robin? 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.
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? God is always good! I tend to feel the same. That's why I enjoy his presence so much. We get to see first hand how the vermin work (I would say think, but we all know they are not allowed or are not capable of that luxury).
That's a lie.
God is always good! That's a lie. Yes it is. Start with this one: Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7 (original subtitles)
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Based on your expertise? Not true. The building was hit by debris and firement who were there said the fires were large and that they could tell early on that the structure was going to collapse. Then why hasn't a single demolition expert in the ENTIRE WORLD said this?
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
Comments (102 - 230) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestBeAlooser typifies a mindset particular to an ethnicity that has demonstrated a parasitic propensity for thousands of years.
#62. To: Diana, ALL (#42)
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.
#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?
#64. To: Diana, ALL (#43)
David L. Griscom, PhD ... snip ...
Really dumb move attempting to discredit such people.
#65. To: noone222, ALL (#44)
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.
#66. To: intotheabyss (#58)
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.
#67. To: Diana, ALL (#45)
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!
#68. To: lodwick (#66)
We still don't have all the details of how things happened, but we do how things didn't happen.
#69. To: innieway, ALL (#48)
Thus when a mathematician claims it is IMPOSSIBLE for the collapses to have happened in the time frame in which they did,
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...
#70. To: lodwick, intotheabyss (#66)
Only a sub-70 IQ type would still buy the official story today.
#71. To: intotheabyss, innieway, robin, ALL (#63)
Maybe BAC can win the $1,000,000 reward I heard about for proving the official story.
#72. To: intotheabyss, lodwick, ALL (#68)
We still don't have all the details of how things happened, but we do how things didn't happen.
That’s why the shills focus on the former. They certainly can't defend the latter.
#73. To: BeAChooser (#71)
13) Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#74. To: BeAChooser, 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 (#69)
Given a bunch of assumptions about the resistance of the structure.
#75. To: BeAChooser (#71)
broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds.
#76. To: christine (#70)
#77. To: BeAChooser (#72)
foundation of lies.
#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)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#80. To: intotheabyss, ALL (#74)
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.
#81. To: BeAChooser (#67)
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?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#82. To: robin, ALL (#79)
There were 3 buildings, the times are slightly different. They all fell close to free fall.
#83. To: 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 (#79)
#84. To: RickyJ, BeAChooser (#81)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#85. To: BeAChooser (#80)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#86. To: intotheabyss (#83)
Is he a shill through and through?
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#87. To: RickyJ (#85)
You can roll on the floor for you evil masters all day, maybe they will give you a treat.
#88. To: BeAChooser (#82)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#89. To: robin (#86)
#90. To: intotheabyss (#83)
Is he a shill through and through?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#91. To: robin, ALL (#84)
The exposives detonating are visible in small plumes of smoke from the sides of the buildings, just under the line of fall.
There is a name for this in the demolition industry, that is so well acquainted with them.
#92. To: BeAChooser (#91)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#93. To: RickyJ (#90)
He's a paid shill.
#94. To: BeAChooser (#91)
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.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#95. To: RickyJ, BeAChooser, *9-11* (#94)
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.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#96. To: robin, ALL (#88)
A pancake fall, each floor hitting the one under it, would have taken much longer than times recorded.
These building fell like a demolition, especially WTC7, which was never hit, and had only very small fires.
They look like a demolition, they have explosives going off, just under the line of fall, just like a demolition; they are demolitions.
#97. To: RickyJ, ALL (#94)
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.)
.
.
.