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

[JoeXIII'007]

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

[KenWittlief]

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

[Ryan Dognaux]

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.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

The fact that he's investigating into this gives the theories presented, in my opinion, a reason to be looked at.

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?

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

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.

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.

[thegathering]

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

[JoeXIII'007]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

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?

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

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by JoeXIII'007

Fire from the gasoline of the plane that crashed into it cannot burn that bright

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.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

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

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

[Chriszuma]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

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

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.

[thegathering]

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

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.

[lukevanoort]

Originally Posted by JoeXIII'007

there was a high temperature alkaline metal (i think) called thermite w/sulfur that cut through the steel and thus made the towers collapse

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.

[KenWittlief]

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 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.

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?

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by Chriszuma

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.

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.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

The towers were by design made to withstand a 707 flying into it, which was the biggest plane at the time.

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