Wtc 7, It Own Story Of Controled Demolition And Cover Up.

[Ryan2065]

It hasn't been prooven that weakened metal by fires bring down an iron structure building, except for the 3 owned by Silverstein.

Then why coat iron with fire resistance stuff? =)

 

[Ryan2065]

Professor Steven E Jones presented to a scientific community of his University on 1 Sept 2006. This may possibly be the last scientific evidence presented by a scientist you are going to see or read. Try the above, relatively simple to understand.

I looked it up on ISU's website... My university had these things also...
http://www.physics.isu.edu/colloquium/index.html
I wouldn't exactly say a professor giving a speech to a Physical Science 140 class is him giving a speech to a "scientific community"

 

[Ryan2065]

And just one other quick note... as far as I have read... Steve Jones isn't saying the towers fell because of explosives... He says that it is a possibility that needs to be explored more and offers evidence for this theory of his.

 

[anyscientologist]

Then why coat iron with fire resistance stuff?

The iron is coated so that fire doesn't heat it. That's diferent than saying that fire can destroy an iron building.

Was WTC - 7 coated with fire resistance stuff? why did it colapsed if no plane would strip it from its hipotetical fire resistance stuff?

Aplly the same reassoning to the Tween towers and you will see the crime and the lie.

 

[greatcalgarian]

And just one other quick note... as far as I have read... Steve Jones isn't saying the towers fell because of explosives... He says that it is a possibility that needs to be explored more and offers evidence for this theory of his.[Dr. Jones is very humble, as a good scientist, he would not jump into conclusion without independent verification of his finding, not like Government sponsored Scientific America, Popular Mechanics, FEMA, NIST etc GC][/quote]

Did you read the pdf format slide presentation I provided the link?
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment

In the original link, Dr. Jones was presenting evidence on the presence of superthermite in the steel recovered from the tower collapse. This is call indirect evidence of the explosives (superthermite) causing the towers to fall.

What Caused Not Two but Three WTC Skyscrapers to COMPLETELY Collapse on 9/11/2001?

Dr. Steven E. Jones
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University

I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government. In particular, we will discuss the molten metal which flowed from a Tower minutes before its fall, and the large liquid-metal pools beneath all three collapsed skyscrapers.

The views in this presentation are the sole responsibility of the author, and are not endorsed by the ISU Department of Physics.

See also:
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
Journal of 9/11 Studies

 

[Ryan2065]

So GC... what are you debating here? From what you posted all Dr Jones is saying is...

I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges.

There is a huge difference between a hypothesis and a theory... In short, he basically says... "I looked over the evidence and my best guess for what happened is this... But really I don't have anywhere near the amount of data needed to even begin proving my guess."

He is calling for more studies of the materials...

 

[Ryan2065]

The iron is coated so that fire doesn't heat it. That's diferent than saying that fire can destroy an iron building.

Was WTC - 7 coated with fire resistance stuff? why did it colapsed if no plane would strip it from its hipotetical fire resistance stuff?

Aplly the same reassoning to the Tween towers and you will see the crime and the lie.

So look at WTC 7... which you admit didn't fall like the twin towers... and draw my conclusion for how the twin towers fell from that tower?

Does this make sense to anyone else?

And you say fire cannot destroy an iron building, but you still say the iron needs fire resistance stuff on it... Why?

 

[greatcalgarian]

So GC... what are you debating here? From what you posted all Dr Jones is saying is...

There is a huge difference between a hypothesis and a theory... In short, he basically says... "I looked over the evidence and my best guess for what happened is this... But really I don't have anywhere near the amount of data needed to even begin proving my guess."

He is calling for more studies of the materials...

I think he has presented sufficient evidence that caused those who like a simple way out (which could be wrong) to feel uneasy and worked on applying pressure to make him shut up.
You have said it all, "He is calling for more studies of the materials" it is the last sentence that caused him to be on paid leave

 

[Ryan2065]

But you seem to be giving his "evidence" as conclusive evidence that the towers were taken down by a bomb yet he really just doesn't think the facts line up in his world and thinks there should be more studies done on it... Actually if you look at anything in the academic world there is usually one or two people like this with any new theory presented... No matter how many people back the hypothesis, theres usually at least one person holding on to a different theory and wants to call for more studies and the like... After awhile you just have to say enough has been and realize you won't satisfy everyone.

As far as I know this professor has not really swayed other "high profile" people in the scientific community to call for more studies on 9/11... If he actually was able to make good points to the scientific community trust me, they would be all over this. Showing that Bush planted bombs in the towers? Sure the government might not like this person for 2 years, but then when the democrats came to power they would be considered a god. Then there would be all that good press coverage for whatever institute they work for... All the private funding from the thankful democrats... Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And not all the high people in the scientific community are money hungry dirty scientists who work for the government and are on the government payroll. If this mans reasoning was sound and his facts straight and it explained things the plane crash scenario didn't then it would be studied more... But it doesn't... So scientists have better things to do.

Or do you seriously think the Twin Towers in no way could have fell from a plane and every reputable scientist in the United States other than this man is in on the lie?

 

[greatcalgarian]

But you seem to be giving his "evidence" as conclusive evidence that the towers were taken down by a bomb yet he really just doesn't think the facts line up in his world and thinks there should be more studies done on it... Actually if you look at anything in the academic world there is usually one or two people like this with any new theory presented... No matter how many people back the hypothesis, theres usually at least one person holding on to a different theory and wants to call for more studies and the like... After awhile you just have to say enough has been and realize you won't satisfy everyone.

No, I think he is 90% confident that the plane alone did not cause the tower to collapse. What his stand is that there are sufficient scientific evidence to point to the fact that the likely cause for the collapse of the tower is caused by superthermite. Of course he took the stand that more studies have to be done. He is not the lackey 'scientists' and 'engineers' of the government, that concorted half baked truth and reported them as the scientific truth. Science is not something that is used to get every one to agree on unless every one is having the same attitude towards science, ie, everything must be repeatable by experiment. When the actual experiment cannot be done, or too expansive to be done, like in this case, build another twin tower and flew another plane into it, what the scientist will do is to do a modeling simulation. In this case, the modeling done by NIST is completely questionable, with the wrong presumption imposed into the model. That is what scientist called bad science. The model is shaped to give what the designer wish to see. What Jones called for is another model using his theory (or you might like to call it hypothesis) and place superthermite and see whether the collapse will be close to that observed on 9/11, including all the yellow metals, puff of ejecting dust etc. You should read the complete analysis of Jones, where he has stated his strong objection to the NIST report that it just stop there where the postulation that the beams will failed under the simulated conditions, but no more model follow up to show how the pancake take place, which may not actually happened.

As far as I know this professor has not really swayed other "high profile" people in the scientific community to call for more studies on 9/11... If he actually was able to make good points to the scientific community trust me, they would be all over this. Showing that Bush planted bombs in the towers? Sure the government might not like this person for 2 years, but then when the democrats came to power they would be considered a god. Then there would be all that good press coverage for whatever institute they work for... All the private funding from the thankful democrats... Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Have not swayed other "high profile" people in the scientific community? Heee HEE:biglaugh: ....I do not call myself "high profile" scientist. I would call myself a respectable scientist. I do not have the courage to come out and do what Jones have done. I know what is going to happen to me if I do that, I have my family to consider and so on. So what am I going to do? Just debating the issue with RF members.
You really think the democrats are better than the republicans? You are disillusion, they are all the same calibre - Politicians which are slimmy. There are not many Washington or Lincoln in this world, you should know. Jimmy Carter may be one close enough.

Incidentally, scientific community knows when it is best to mind their own business. Afterall, if they can prove without reasonable doubt that the towers were brought down by demolition, what can that contribute towards the advancement of science and human benefit? Nothing at all. It will just satisfy human desire to punish those pepentrators and feel happy on having help those victims to have their revenge. You see, that is what the government is doing very well, put the blame onto Osama and Al Qaeda, created by the government to take the blame, and with every Al Qaeda terrorist that US government killed, those 9/11 victims will feel a bit better if they believe the government story. The consequence of getting to the truth might not be good for the Americans or for the whole world, because we really do not know the massive power behind the pepetrators of 9/11...and you do not want to take revenge on your own kind, do you?

And not all the high people in the scientific community are money hungry dirty scientists who work for the government and are on the government payroll. [My friends, money can buy those people without conscience, but will not buy a true scientists. So you do not see many scientists come out in support of the government story, have you? Even Jones is telling the truth or has found the truth, scientists will not come out to support him, as it has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with politics! And when politics has already got the smell of religion in it, scientists have learned their lesson, not many want to be Galileo, you know]If this mans reasoning was sound and his facts straight and it explained things the plane crash scenario didn't then it would be studied more... But it doesn't... So scientists have better things to do.[see above, the argument does not hold water, there is a fallacy, but I do not recall the name, something like A means B but not C means D is A ]

Or do you seriously think the Twin Towers in no way could have fell from a plane and every reputable scientist [this is another fallacy in debate :yes: ]in the United States [serious problem here, you are talking about US, there are no scientists over in Australia....You have forgotten one Australian scientist come up with another theory supporting the plane causing tower collapse....He will be **** off by your neglecting him] other than this man is in on the lie?[see above reasoning]

 

[greatcalgarian]

Click twice.

 

[Ryan2065]

No, I think he is 90% confident that the plane alone did not cause the tower to collapse.

Right... Yet his 90% confidence level from incomplete data is the smoking gun of the conspiracy theorists.

What his stand is that there are sufficient scientific evidence to point to the fact that the likely cause for the collapse of the tower is caused by superthermite.

Yet 200 scientists disagree who had access to the data he did not.

Of course he took the stand that more studies have to be done. He is not the lackey 'scientists' and 'engineers' of the government, that concorted half baked truth and reported them as the scientific truth.

Not many scientists are lackys of the government believe it or not... If so they would probably back the government on some of the policies they have... Its not like our government has ever clashed with scientists before... You know... they are all lackys *cough* stem cells, evolution *cough*

Science is not something that is used to get every one to agree on unless every one is having the same attitude towards science, ie, everything must be repeatable by experiment. When the actual experiment cannot be done, or too expansive to be done, like in this case, build another twin tower and flew another plane into it, what the scientist will do is to do a modeling simulation. In this case, the modeling done by NIST is completely questionable, with the wrong presumption imposed into the model.

So did the people put "Explosions were not present and the buildings fell this way" into the model when they ran it? The model was probably told explosives were not in the building... what of it? What model would say "It fell from gravity and not explosives" when it knows explosives are in the building? It was made to tell the scientists if the buildings could have gone down from the planes alone with no help from outside sources (like bombs) and it came back saying yes... this could happen.

That is what scientist called bad science. The model is shaped to give what the designer wish to see. What Jones called for is another model using his theory (or you might like to call it hypothesis) and place superthermite and see whether the collapse will be close to that observed on 9/11, including all the yellow metals, puff of ejecting dust etc. You should read the complete analysis of Jones, where he has stated his strong objection to the NIST report that it just stop there where the postulation that the beams will failed under the simulated conditions, but no more model follow up to show how the pancake take place, which may not actually happened.

I am sure if you messed around enough with a model of the twin towers you could come up with many ways the towers could have fallen. The thing is... They ran the model with a plane running into the tower... Given the evidence they have (which isn't all exact) it fits the model pretty well both timing and the way things fell. Is it perfect? No. Why? Quite frankly the government didn't send the memo to the science boys about 9/11 so they wern't there ready to take their exact measurements and all that fun stuff. Just to show how off their measurements are... They don't even know exactly how long it took the towers to fall. Sure they have it boiled down to a few second range... Its something like 9 seconds to 20 seconds... But they do not know the exact time... Much of the crash site was taken apart by those evil firemen looking for survivors and trying to move the dead bodies before they rotted... That of course doesnt help the scientists...

Have not swayed other "high profile" people in the scientific community? Heee HEE:biglaugh: ....I do not call myself "high profile" scientist. I would call myself a respectable scientist. I do not have the courage to come out and do what Jones have done. I know what is going to happen to me if I do that, I have my family to consider and so on. So what am I going to do? Just debating the issue with RF members.

Oh... so you are a respectable scientist in physics or some other degree of some relavence here?

You really think the democrats are better than the republicans?

No... but if someone shows the republican president killed thousands of his own people... This would pretty much boot all republicans out of the office and the democrats would take over... So, in the end, the democrats would like whoever did that.

Incidentally, scientific community knows when it is best to mind their own business.

Actually the scientific community plays their own politics... Sometimes the government gets involved (you cannot experiment on babies and other silly laws like that) but most of the time the scientific community only wants the governments money. At least the scientific community is minding its own business when it comes to stem cells... Man, I see no US scientists argueing for the legalization of stem cell research...

Afterall, if they can prove without reasonable doubt that the towers were brought down by demolition, what can that contribute towards the advancement of science and human benefit? Nothing at all.

So scientists only ever do stuff that benefits the scientific community (note it does benefit humans to come foward)? Then why are the adhering to laws that slow down the scientific process? Why do they even have their own ethical and moral codes on top of government regulations?

You see, that is what the government is doing very well, put the blame onto Osama and Al Qaeda, created by the government to take the blame, and with every Al Qaeda terrorist that US government killed, those 9/11 victims will feel a bit better if they believe the government story. The consequence of getting to the truth might not be good for the Americans or for the whole world, because we really do not know the massive power behind the pepetrators of 9/11...and you do not want to take revenge on your own kind, do you?

Hehe, Al Qaeda was made up by the government and they pined this on a fake terrorist organization? :clap That is rich.

see above, the argument does not hold water, there is a fallacy, but I do not recall the name, something like A means B but not C means D is A

So it is a fallacy to say if a scientist makes a good point, other scientist are going to study it?

serious problem here, you are talking about US, there are no scientists over in Australia....You have forgotten one Australian scientist come up with another theory supporting the plane causing tower collapse....He will be **** off by your neglecting him

I said in America beacuse if I say in the world this opens me up to people who have a bone to pick with america... Trust me, there are enough scientists in America who are mad at the government that would want this thing exposed if there was enough hard evidence.

 

[Ryan2065]

Here is something that is interesting...
http://www.physorg.com/news77212675.html

"Current findings from the simulation have identified the destruction of 11 columns on the 94th floor, 10 columns on the 95th floor and nine columns on the 96th floor," he said. "This is a major insight. When you lose close to 25 percent of your columns at a given level, the building is significantly weakened and vulnerable to collapse."

A newer simulation... But so far they have only been able to do the crash, nothing else quite yet.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Here is something that is interesting...
http://www.physorg.com/news77212675.html
A newer simulation... But so far they have only been able to do the crash, nothing else quite yet.

Let us wait to see whether Purdue confirmed NIST work

Your previous post is too detail to reply to each and every point. Just to satisfy your curiousity, as I have answered Ymir before, I am a Chemical Engineer and Material Scientist by training, and I am very very old:angel2:

 

[greatcalgarian]

No... but if someone shows the republican president killed thousands of his own people... This would pretty much boot all republicans out of the office and the democrats would take over... So, in the end, the democrats would like whoever did that.

Just this small interesting point. The pepetrators include both Republican and Democrate politicians, as well as politicians and nut case people. So even the Democrat will not want the truth to come out fully.

 

[greatcalgarian]

I said in America beacuse if I say in the world this opens me up to people who have a bone to pick with america... Trust me, there are enough scientists in America who are mad at the government that would want this thing exposed if there was enough hard evidence.

You said it all: if there was enough hard evidence. That is why it is most important for the government conspirators to remove all HARD evidence, to suppress any source likely to lead to HARD evidence, and to create false evidence to neutralize any likely finding of hard evidence etc to confuse the public, especially the scientists.

Didn't you notice that the excuse "NATIONAL SECURITY" has been used to refuse to release informations except to the 200 trusted scientists and engineers in NIST??

 

[greatcalgarian]

Hehe, Al Qaeda was made up by the government and they pined this on a fake terrorist organization? :clap That is rich

See my thread on Noam Chomsky.

 

[greatcalgarian]

but most of the time the scientific community only wants the governments money

Scientists will not like this implication or this view, but you are pretty safe stating this in RF, as I do not see many scientists participating in RF

 

[greatcalgarian]

"As a result of the Pentagon research, we have a better understanding of what happens when a tremendous mass of fluid such as fuel hits a solid object at high velocity," Sozen said. "We believe most of the structural damage from such aircraft collisions is caused by the mass of the fluid on the craft, which includes the fuel.

"Damage resulting solely from the metal fuselage, engines and other aircraft parts is not as great as that resulting from the mass of fluids on board. You could think of the aircraft as a sausage skin. Its mass is tiny compared to the plane's fluid contents."

I just browse quickly over the Purdue news, and either the reporter is misquoting them or there is something seriously wrong with the above highlighted statement. I would interprete it to means that the mass of the fuel is very very large compared to that of the solid part of a plane. Or it may mean that the fuel as a destructive agent of an impacting body is doing much more damage than that doen by the solid part of the plane. Or it could mean that the liquid fuel may ignite or expand and create high pressure and act as an agent of impact destruction to the tower. However, from just the news, I would say it is garbage science to say "Its mass is tiny compared to the plane's fluid contents"

The actual Purdue simulation site state the following:
Much of the mass of the aircraft is provided by the fuel; in this case about 27%.

The plane's fluid content is about 27% according to the above, so how can you make the statement "Its mass is tiny compared to the plane's fluid content"?

The Purdue statement also is misleading, 27% can be considered as 'much of the mass'?

 

[greatcalgarian]

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=9069&st=0

Many points of discussion were also found in the above.