Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=Steve+Jones

I watched this last night. The research he has done is pretty impressive in my opinion, though that might be just me.

For certain, it might be better than the "Loose Change" video.

-Joe

edit: wikipedia article on him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

2 hrs and 13 minutes? what was the bottom line?

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

Just in case anyone is thinking of blowing this off immediately as a conspiracy theory, let me say that Steven Jones isn't some nut. He's a professor of physics and a man of science. The fact that he's investigating into this gives the theories presented, in my opinion, a reason to be looked at. I'm currently watching the google video now and will post my thoughts after I finish it.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

or, being a professor, he could have decided to take the conspiracy theories as a good classroom example of bad science?

I dont think I will have 2 1/2 hrs free during the next several days to watch it, so Im hoping someone will give us a summary?

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

I posted something similar to this a couple months ago and my thread got deleted.

Keep in mind, there are a lot of nutty professors out there.

I'll watch the video later tonight.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

Steven isn't the only professor on board with this theory. Thus far, his presentation has been backed by other professors, one of them from MIT. Not only educators, but professionals as well - civil engineers suggesting that the current theory just doesn't add up. Again, it's presented in a well backed manner.

If you do have that much time open, I suggest watching this video. He presents his evidence in a very scientific and matter of fact way. I've taken two years of physics and understand the basics of what he's saying. Thus far, from what I have watched, he has talked about how WTC 7 being collapsed by fire does not make sense.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

I give him credit for putting together a good argument. It's an interesting perspective for sure.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

I will try to keep this summary brief and simple:

-As far as WTC 7 is concerned, it fell too fast mathematically (basic physics equations involving distance, time, velocity, and acceleration of gravity) for the official story to say that collapsed due to fires (which there were little of) and whatnot. There had to be some sort of resistance to slow the fall. Too much of a sign that there were implanted explosives or implosive devices (and quite frankly, if the building was able to stand for that long after the initial collapses, it should have never fell).

-A video looking at one of the burning towers shows an extremely bright molten metal flowing out of the corner of the tower near the crash levels. Fire from the gasoline of the plane that crashed into it cannot burn that bright, nor can the heat from that alone (and the papers inside file cabinets) make the steel that made up the towers falter and cause collapse. What Steve Jones is theorizing is that due to some of the 'signatures' if you will photographed after the collapses on the metal (red, odd rust marks), there was a high temperature alkaline metal (i think) called thermite w/sulfur that cut through the steel and thus made the towers collapse (military grade I believe). He also adds as in other conspiracies the fact that before the attacks, there were unannounced evacuations of the building.

-An engineer at Underwriter's Labs stated that after several attempts to make model towers collapse under the conditions that the real ones were in, that the model towers didn't collapse or show great weak areas to allow collapse. That engineer was fired. Thus, if you watch the video, you will see steve has a cartoon showing how things are being investigated, and that is starting with a conclusion ending with the evidence to support it instead of finding evidence to create a conclusion.

-Speaking of evidence, the evidence at the scene of the crime was immediately cut up and destroyed after the attacks. No time for investigations or analysis. THAT'S A PROBLEM!!! Frankly, there is very little evidence to analyze, still a problem.

There were other non-scientific facts, such as no warnings of toxic dust in the air (in fact they told clean up workers not to wear masks to keep scare levels low) that has probably claimed the lives of a few people, and too much time before jets were scrambled to escort the hijacked jets. Lots of warning, little action.

That's all I can remember from the lecture. It is my very humble opinion that everyone needs to reserve a couple hours to go through what may be a boring lecture, but contains rather important information. Post a bulletin about it in myspace, etc. etc. Blog it, do whatever. ;)

A very cautious 2 cents... slowly put in the can...
-joe

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

Those planes weren't running on gasoline. ;) But I know what you mean.

I do admit that some things don't quite seem to add up, but I'm not jumping to any conclusions because of that. So, I guess you could say I don't believe nor disbelieve in any theory.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

I believe jet fuel is just gasoline with an extremely high octane level.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

Actually, you're wrong. According to wikipedia:
"The most common fuel worldwide is a kerosene/paraffin oil-based fuel classified as JET A-1"

If you want the other side of the Loose Change argument, which make a lot more logical conclusions, check out the Loose Change Viewer's Guide

EDIT: By the way, I just started listening to this video, and already he's made some errors. He claims that the building couldn't have possibly fallen due to fire. It didn't. It fell due to fire AND a gigantic plane smashing into it at full throttle.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

I believe that high octane, gasoline based fuels are only suitable for piston engine aircraft.

Chris is right about the parrafin/kerosine/naptha based fuels being used in modern jets.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

Thermite is a mixture of powdered aluminum and iron oxide (rust). When it is raised to high enough temperatures, the aluminum rips the oxygen off the iron to form aluminum oxide and molten iron. It is used to weld together railroad tracks, and the military uses it to destroy equipment. If you've heard the stories of a material that you could ignite on the hood of a jeep, and it'll melt through the engine, this is it. That said, thermite could form accidentally on a rusty object, if aluminum powder is nearby. Mind you that is rather unlikely since powdered aluminum isn't going to be all over a rusty column. It also doesn't really 'explode', it might fling off bits of molten iron a few yards, but it wouldn't slow any falls.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

But I don't know, they sort of debunk the whole thing about the combination of the plane and the fire bringing it down. The towers were by design made to withstand a 707 flying into it, which was the biggest plane at the time. The analogy they use in the presentation is actually good one. It's like puncturing a screen window with a pencil - it puts a hole in it but it doesn't destroy the entire screen. And I think his argument is well presented on how the fire couldn't have done it. Never had a building made from these materials been brought down from a fire alone. I also was surprised to find out that even if the fire was burning 650 degrees C, which would reduce the steel's strength by half, it still could have supported 2 - 3 times the stress that was being placed on the building. At least, that's what his presentation said. Interesting to see different viewpoints and theories.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

ok I watched part of it and read the summary in the post above. A couple of points:

1. The professor shows bldg 7 falling, and buildings that were intentionally demolished falling, and says something to the effect of "it looks the same"

what does that mean? If someone is poisoned and someone has a brain aneurysm, Im willing to bet they look pretty much the same as they fall to the floor. The fact that they fall the same way doesn't mean the cause of failure is the same. Logical fallacy.

2. The professor makes a big point that many sky scrapers have caught fire and burned, and none of them ever collapsed until 9/11. Ok, but how many of those other buildings had a fully fueled jetliner jammed into the center of their frame at the time? Most buildings are not constructed with materials anything like ten thousand gallons of jet fuel. There was nothing in those other buildings that would combine with the updraft rush of air to burn like a kerosene fueled blow torch.

3. Metal was seen pouring out of one tower? There was a jet aircraft in there, made mostly of aluminum! Aluminum does burn if you get it hot enough, and it would certainly melt in this type of a fire.

4. The fact that an engineer was fired from UL, after his computer models could not replicate the fall of the towers, what are we to conclude? That he was fired to cover up his discovery, or that he had no idea what he was doing, or how to model something this complex with the computer SW he was using? Could he have been fired for being incompetent?

5. The WTC area was cleaned up quickly because the cause of the fires and collapse was already known - it was captured on cameras, the second impact was seen live by millions of people, there was no mystery. If someone is shot multiple times during a robbery, with 10 million eye witnesses, and dies on the spot, Im pretty sure you dont have a bunch of doctors running tests, thinking "maybe his wife poisioned him? maybe he was hit by lightning?"

6. Why did bulding 7 fall? Because the towers that fell were right across the street, and tons of debris fell onto bldg 7, and the shock of the towers hitting the bedrock was like a localized earth quake. Again, nothing like this has happened before because nothing like this has ever happened before. There is no historical basis to look back on for similar events.

If this professor had been part of the investigation team, had access to the site, access to the materials, and then decided something else was going on, then I would give him more credibility. But to look at videos, and eyewitness account from people who didnt understand what they were seeing, and who were in shock at the time, and base his conclusions on that data alone,

that is not science. That is armchair speculation.

The WTC towers were designed in a unique manner. The outside walls were primary load bearing structures. This allowed the inside areas to be more open.

The towers were not punctured like a pencil through a window screen. We all saw the plane fly into the second tower. The plane sliced the entire side of the tower open from wing tip to wing tip, destroying the load bearing structure of the entire one side and corner of the building.

I think this point alone demonstrates the poor science used by this professor. He could see with his own eyes that the entire side of the building was slashed open, but then presents the quoted statements about pencils and window screens.

As this point you gotta ask yourself "what is this person really up to? What are his motives?

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

I'm with Ken on this one. Whoever says it was like a pencil is blind. A more fitting analogy would be if you hit your screen door with an axe, and then torched it with a flame thrower. There's no telling what might happen.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

A friend of mine posted this in another forum:

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

Well, #1, it was an awfully long delay between the collapse of the towers and bldg 7, and #2, mathematically the building fell too fast for just shock, debris, and what little fire there was to bring it down that quickly. If the building fell a bit more logically, it would fall a lot slower, and over a period of time, due to the resistance from the structure of the building.

The fuel burned off very quickly after the crashes, thus for it to have any effect on the structure, it would be very minimal. Plus whatever flammable materials in the towers at the time could not have burned hot enough alone to melt the steel.




OK, three pictures. One of molten aluminum, one of molten steel, and one of the metal flowing from the tower shortly before the collapse. You can also see some comparison photos here, with a thermite demo too.

I am pretty sure he was doing the right thing: starting with the evidence available from the scene, and ending with an appropiate conclusion, instead of starting with a conclusion and finding evidence to support it.

Of course the cause of death from a shooting is obvious, but when you have two towers that were built to last collapse due to what the official story claims, and the official story contradicts the laws of physics and whatnot, you have a very obvious problem. Especially when engineers all over the place are befuddled and puzzled as to why they collapsed. Evidence is crucial to figuring out exactly why. Popular conclusion in this case needs to be verified, and there was no time to do it with how quickly the evidence was buried.

Also, in any crime scene, there are investigators who find evidence (bullets, shrapnel, etc.) and will put them in bags to keep them in the condition they were in at the scene. There is almost always an evidence gathering phase, then a clean up, not just a clean up. In the case of 9/11, the evidence at the scene of the crime was immediately destroyed, allowing for little to no scientific analysis of the steel from the towers from private investigators.

What about the central core columns at the center of the buildings??? I am pretty certain that the outer walls were a bit weak to a jet, but the core had to have withstood the impact a lot better.

His motives are to pressure the government for solid answers as to what exactly happened on the days before and on 9/11. In a follow up video here, he claims that he has been bribed to shut up about this from homeland security. There are a lot of holes in the official story, and it takes the removal of the shock and awe of that day's memories to do some real critical analysis of what really happened, and if you think about it, there was some crazy stuff going on that doesn't happen on any normal disaster.

total: 4 cents... with extreme caution.

-Joe

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

there is no logic to this. If someone is making outrageous claims (the buildings were rigged with explosive/thermite charges set to go off 1 hour after the impacts.... apparently all done with the governments fore-knowledge)

then making more outrageous claims (the government tried to bribe me to shut up) does not further his case

its only more of the same.

If the government wanted to silence him, after killing thousands of people in the WTC, they would not do it with money. He would simply disappear.

Going back to the aircraft. The towers were designed to withstand an impact from a 707? 727? Jet planes normally fly at 200 to 250mph when they are only 1000 feet above the ground. They would have to be on final approach and off course to be that low to the ground over Manhatten, or suffering from engine failure that causes them to fly too slow to maintain altitude.

The planes that hit the towers were not only fully loaded with fuel, they were flying at full speed. They hit the towers going 650mph. You can see this in the video of the first plane that hit, taken by the documenary crew working with new fireman recruits. The plane flew overhead at full throttle, screaming across the Manhatten skyline, only 600 feet off the ground.

No one would ever expect an impact like that. The towers were not designed for that kind of event.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

I guess the biggest problem with his theory is that explosives have to be set before they can be detonated.

There is no evidence that those parts of the tower were deconstructed to have explosive charges layed inside the steel support columns before the towers were hit. A detonation of that scale would take months of careful planning to be executed... and almost as long to prepare the building for detonation, coordinate drilling locations, and set charges.

Explosives could have been a possibility, but research was not conducted on the possibility of explosives in the tower because there was no evidence to support explosives being in the tower (unlike an aircraft and jet fuel).

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

This issue has been cleared up many times. The jet fuel was merely the ignition source. All the flammables inside the towers were what burned long after the fuel was exhausted. In addition, the steel never melted. It merely was severely weakened to the point where it was no longer capable of bearing the load of the building.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

I was in one of the WTC towers about a year before the attack and if I recall correctly, the outer walls carried the majority of the building's load.

And planted explosives? There's no way that much drilling could go unnoticed. A pneumatic hammer drill is one loud beast.

Also, I'm reading that the 767s hit with a kinetic energy 7 times greater than the impact modeled when the building was designed.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

True, but according to an interview with the original architectural team that I saw on TV, they only considered the impact load (of some tons of aluminim hitting the structure), and had failed to consider the fire effects from the fuel load. The terrorists used planes will relatively high fuel loads, and ~24000 pounds of fuel can make for a big fire.

Don

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

He bills the presentation has a serious scientific lecture, but I never heard any serious science. I did hear a lot of "seems to me..." and far more political reasons to support his conspiracy theory than science.

Wetzel

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

Thus could be the reason that there were unannounced evacuations of the building before the attacks according to people that worked there.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

I heard some science, at least more than is usually presented in any kind of conspiracy theory. Off the top of my head I know he mentioned a lot of physics laws. I didn't get the whole religious tie in at the end though.

Really, I don't think any of this will ever make it very far. There's very little hard evidence to work with and that makes proving something extremely difficult. As was noted, all the evidence was cleaned up and trucked out. It's all interesting nonetheless.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

here is another thing that does not add up with the conspiracy theory version

ok, lets say someone mined the towers and building 7, so they could blow them up on queue

Since the government rushed in to destroy the evidence (as this video proposes) they would have to be involved. Therefore they were also responsible for hijacking the 4 airliners with 20 people who what?

who went along with their plans and were willing to die in the process? Who thought they were working for arab extreemists instead of the US government?

why wasnt the Pentagon also mined so it would collapse? what was the fourth building that was being targeted when the passengers tried to take over flight 73 and the plane went down in a field in PA? Was the whitehouse also mined to collapse? If not what was the 4th target, and what did they do with the thermite explosives all through that building, when flight 73 failed to hit its target?

what if the two planes that targeted the WTC towers had failed? What if only one of them made it through? then what? how would they get the explosives back out of the building that was not hit, considering all the attention that would be surrounding it after the other tower fell?

One other thing - when tall buildings are imploded for demolition, they appear to fall into the ground. They fail at the bottom floor, and the upper floors appear to dissolve into the ground.

We have all seen the videos of the towers falling. They were exactly the opposite - they started collasping at the top, and pancaked floor by floor all the way down. At no point did the lower floors give way before the top of the building crashed down into it.

Why? Because there were no explosives on the lower floors taking out the girders. When the upper structure of the towers failed, the lower floors were crushed by the falling mass, one by one.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

Answered by numbers I put in your quotes:

1. Agents. For who, I dunno. But you must remember that the news media can only report the information they can get ahold of and cite. Now figure this ethical standard as a tool for the government to use to create the story.

2. First, I need to correct that it was flight 91 that was taken over. Secondly, no one has done much investigation into the Pentagon attack, because all evidence was either seized or destroyed. Surveillance videos included. The only video from the actual impact is 4 frames, which show nothing and then a great big ball of fire. Witnesses describe hearing missile like noises before the explosion there (loose change documentary). Lastly, I think a government knows that pulling explosives out of any building after a failed attempt would bring a crap load of suspicion, thus they know as long as there are no fires, there won't be any explosions, and the thermite shouldn't be too much of a problem. So they leave it there just to be on the safe side secrecy.(answer to 3)

4. Do you think, if someone actually planned this, that someone be so stupid as to make it obvious that there are explosives in the buildings, and after the planes crash, make these basement explosives ignite, or during the collapse? Come on, if there were any planners, they wouldn't be that stupid. Thus they would engineer a collapse that starts from the top down, which shouldn't be too hard of a problem. However, speaking of the basement, google "WTC basement," you'll get some interesting results.

Lastly, another vid: here.

The sixth cent, in the can.

-Joe

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

Apparently there are other surviellance videos taken from other sources, I'm drawing a blank right now so I can't remember exactly where. It's just odd that the only footage that has been released are a few frames from a security camera.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

Actually it was United 93.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

OK, i knew it started with a nine... lol. so much for posting after work...

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

Actually the 4th hijacked plane that crashed in Pennslyvania was United Airlines Flight 93 - not flight 73 or 91.

As for many conspiracy theories, I really can't buy into them. I have a big problem with the witnesses hearing a "missile" part. Were they aeronautical engineers or pilots or people who can actually tell the difference between an aircraft engine at full speeds and a cruise missile? No, they were just ordinary civilians for the most part. To them, any high-pitched wailing sounds like whatever they want it to sound like. Some may have said it sounds like a dentist drill, while others will say a missile. Are both correct? Yes.

Is this any different than describing anything that is really loud (read: hurricane, tornado) as a freight train? I've been through a Category 4 hurricane, and it is incredibly loud and a freight train is not bad analogy. But at the same time, I can also say that it sounds like the backup generator room where I work when it is generating away at full-power. Now an ordinary unknowing citizen is never going to compare a hurricane to a generator room, because they've never been in one and they don't know what it sounds like. They will only describe things in terms they know.

And maybe, just maybe, some details of this post don't add up. Did Arthur Dutra really write this post, or did the government plant a robot at his computer while aliens abducted him in a UFO to Area 51, and showed him videos of the second sniper from the grassy knoll in Dallas, as well as videos of how the government Photoshopped images of astronaut's bootprints onto to the lunar surface. OMG, I said too much! Must.... resist.... CIA.... agents.... :p

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

While Steve Jones may have a PhD in physics, that hardly gives him the credentials to contradict the countless structural engineers who've done analyses of the fall of the Twin Towers. His motivation is political and from some of his other publications, his science is suspect as well.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

I vote for the Robot. This is Chief Delphi, after all... :D

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

Though completely unrelated to the physics aspect of this thread, here is what could be another "piece of the puzzle" as Steve Jones would have put it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...nav=rss_nation

I will not copy the article into this post due to copyright. That is all.

;)

-Joe

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

The planning
Wiring the building with explosives: Ignoring that the people in the building probably would have noticed the construction going on, the walls being torn out, the floors getting replaced. We've all seen how hard it is just keeping a robot going: How did the controls for the explosives remain fully intact after a fully-fueled 767 hit them and set off a huge fire? How did the pilots of the planes hit the exact floor that the explosives were wired at so that it looked real? To answer this question, the conspiracy theorists need to present a floor plan of the wiring needed to sustain an airliner hit and subsequent fuel/building fire.

The competence and the motive
Regarding the ability of the government to actually execute this plan: We have seen over the years that the CIA/military/administration is not particularely competent in various ways. The intelligence pre-iraq, the execution of the post-war cleanup in Iraq, the inability to capture Osama, the response to Katrina, the ENDLESS leaks of information that they deem classified or pertinent to national security. Hell, if you read the entire set of NORAD transcripts on 9/11, it would almost be a comedy if the results of their screwups weren't so grave. How could an administration that has had so many failures and so many leaks successfully execute a plan like this without anyone involved coming forward or the plan going wrong? What was their motive? If their motive was political gain, now that the administration has been in pretty dire straits for almost a year, why haven't we seen another attack?

The crew
A scheme to demolish the WTC 1, 2, and 7 with explosives would probably require hundreds of people. The 20 people that flew the planes would all have friends and family that would wonder where their loved ones went. The people that wired the buildings would wonder why they're placing little black boxes in very specific points around every support column in the building on a specific floor. Those people, if they didn't already know what they were doing, might have figured it out when the towers went down. They would need to be kept quiet. The people that acquired the explosives, hired the contractors, engineered the explosives layout, and paid the bills need to be kept quiet.

The pilots
If the people flying the planes weren't the 20 men shown, who all had backgrounds in extremist islam, where are those men now? Who are the people talking in arabic on the black box tapes? Is it just a coincidence that 20 arabic men with extremist backgrounds just happened to be flying on the 4 planes that crashed? Was the CIA/Illuminati/Presidents planning this for so long that they recruited these men in their teenage years and forced them to attend camps so that there was a good backstory? If the planes weren't piloted and hijacked by the arab men that the mainstream story claims they were, how come all the passengers who made phone calls said they were being held by arab men? Why would the CIA risk having some of its own agents (the 19 hijackers) deported when they overstayed their visas?

How have all these people been kept quiet? Throughout history, there have been whistleblowers in almost everything. The worst verified whistleblower for 9/11 were the people in the FBI that came forward saying that various briefings had talked about arab men at flight schools, and that Bush had been briefed on Osama's plan to turn airliners into missiles.

The government and mainstream stories has answers for all these questions. The mainstream story has a theory for who, how, where, why, and when all the events leading up to 9/11 occurred. The conspiracy theorist approach needs to be able to answer ANY of these questions plausibly, and with strong evidence. If it cannot, then it cannot stand up.

9/11 conspiricies are overated
 

The biggets problem with conspiracy theories is that they rely on descrediting existing explanations or conclusions... Which would be ok, except that they end up snowballing into some fairly exotic views of reality that an occam's razor has a bloodbath with.


BTW, 9/11 is really overrated with who said/did/cover-upped what. Every "fact" you can bring out in support or against whatever theory or explanation you mention, in short, can't really be verified. Merely mentioning this kind of stuff in many circles will lead you to be being labeled a nutcase with no regard for patriotism, etc...

Study something more interesting that won't get people so worked up... I suggest reading about the orgins of the american education system. That is a topic which is much easier to logically debate and argue about, the facts and motivations are very well established, and people actually have a higher regard for you studying it.

The worse you can get off with is an deep appreciation for the modern school system.


Oh how I love the game of life.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

For those of you interrested, tonight on the O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, Bill will speak with a guest from Popular Mechancs about all of the 9/11 'myths'. The segment on tv said they will talk about the professor who thinks the government is behind 9/11 attacks.

Check your local listings for the 'no spin' analysis.