9/11, Steven Jones, and Me – Part 3
Don’t you just love egg nog? Me too.
For part 3, I would like to tell the story of what happened when I went to one of Professor Jones’ presentations at UVSC (Utah Valley State College) that was held on Wednesday, 1 Feb 2006, at 7:00 pm. UVSC is about a 15-minute drive from BYU. At the time of this presentation, I had already had email interaction with Professor Jones, as described in part 2.
I knew that there was going to be a question and answer period at the end of the presentation, so I typed up the best question I could think of: Why demolish WTC 7 when it was going to fall down on its own anyway? And then I provided the testimony of the firemen and the transit data, etc. that I covered in part 2. In preparation, I also printed up our entire email conversation and made notes as to questions I might ask him during his presentation.
I arrived and found that two of my friends were there. One was the guy I mentioned before who introduced me to Professor Jones’ work and the other was videotaping the presentation. You can probably find that presentation video online somewhere – I’m the one whose head explodes about 1 1/2 hours into it. 😉
I sat down in the middle of the audience and they announced that the question and answer period would be at the end and that Professor Jones would not be taking any questions during the presentation. Oh, and the questions would be written and handed in, reviewed, and then given to Professor Jones. Cool – I already had mine typed up, so I handed it in and sat back to soak in the content of the presentation.
I was annoyed by the number of times “WTC 7 wasn’t even hit by a jet” and “no other steel high-rise has ever collapsed because of fire” were repeated, but I got over that. He brought more political and religious information into his presentation than he does in his paper. I’m ok with people having an opinion on political and religious issues, but when billed as “Professor Jones – physicist”, I expected more material that deals with his area of expertise.
I saw one slide that had the infamous photo of the “column cut at an angle” on it. Professor Jones said that it’s still under investigation but the message I got as he talked about it was that this was one of the core columns that was cut with thermite at an angle so that the building would come down. The people all around me were full of “ooh’s” and “aah’s” and were just giddy about how this was surely the smoking gun that would blow the cover off the official government story. I believe it was at this point that I figured out that I was probably in an audience of mostly “true believers” of government conspiracy theories.
Well, I had seen that diagonally cut column before but hadn’t really looked into it. Since then, I have. It turns out that excavation crews cut steel columns at a diagonal because the melting steel runs down, pre-heating the cut so that even though it’s a longer cut, it cuts faster. I then found this page that has other columns being cut at a diagonal by excavation personnel.
This is what bothers me so much about conspiracy theorist methods. They dig deep enough to find something that looks like it matches their beliefs but then they stop digging. Did they go so far as to ask an excavator if that would be a normal cut? Did they Google around to find the page that the photo in question originally came from?
So, I think it was scheduled to be a two-hour presentation with a lot of time for questions at the end. Professor Jones was going into detail about how the government went around telling people that the air at ground zero was safe to breathe when it really wasn’t – fair enough – put those people in jail. He seemed to be picking out whatever he could to sell the audience on the idea that we couldn’t trust the government and so there was one more reason to believe in a demolition theory. I thought this was going to be about physics.
He took up so much time talking about all of this other non-physics stuff that he only left a few minutes at the end for questions. There was a guy reading through the questions and handing them to Professor Jones. Mine was on an 8 1/2″ x 11″ paper and the rest were on quarter page sheets, so mine stood out. It contained details about the firemen testimony and so it was longer than the other questions, but it was still only about a quarter page of text.
I watched the guy reading through my question and handing Professor Jones other questions over and over again until they were out of time. It was a bit frustrating. So I went up afterward and got my printed question from “the question guy” and went up to Professor Jones and waited for him to get done talking to some people who were also asking questions.
It was finally my turn to talk to him. At this point, Professor Jones didn’t know who I was and that I had been conversing with him via email. This was the first time we had seen each other face to face. I told him about the various firemen testimonies of severe damage to WTC 7 and the transit data and how they had set up a collapse zone hours before it collapsed on its own. I read a lot of testimony to him. He said – no lie – “I don’t think there was that much damage.” What? I said that these were firemen standing at the base and inside of WTC 7 on that day telling us what they saw. I asked him on what basis did he think there wasn’t that much damage. We were being rushed out of the room at that point since others had reserved the room. I think my head exploded again in the car on the way home – I can’t remember for sure.
I didn’t hear from him for several months after that until about two months ago when he contacted me again asking if I had any other unresolved issues with his paper. It was a bit strange. I asked him a few questions about chain of custody and he replied with a partial chain of custody that didn’t include dates or names. I then asked him a few more questions and gave him new links to video and photos of the badly damaged south side of WTC 7. He didn’t respond. I sent it again. No response. I received delivery receipts for both emails and so I’m pretty sure he got them.
So, that was a strange story, eh? It left me puzzled about what was going on in his mind to so flatly reject relevant testimony about the condition of WTC 7. It does go against the demolition theory and he’s heavily invested in that theory being true but I don’t know if that’s what’s causing him to ignore this testimony. Hopefully, he’ll reply again and I’ll find out what’s going on.
In part 4, I will go through the current version of his entire paper and bring up any other unresolved issues I see. I’ll be posting that soon. See you then.
Related articles:
9/11, Steven Jones, and Me
9/11, Steven Jones, and Me – Part 2
9/11, Steven Jones, and Me – Part 4
: 9/11, 9/11 Conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracy theories, 911, BYU, Conspiracies, LDS, Steven Jones terror, WTC, WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC towers, War on Terror, World Trade Center, aircraft impact, collapse, conspiracy, conspiracy theories, controlled demolition, demolition, fires, high-rise buildings, pancake theory, progressive collapse, steel, steel-frame, terror attacks, terrorist, theories, thermate, thermite, thermite residues
Posted on December 28, 2006, in Conspiracy Theories. Bookmark the permalink. 39 Comments.
LDS Patriot 
rcronk, you state your head exploded twice
I know the truth behind these explosions and I think your life is in danger; “truthers” don’t like the truth you have elucidated about the weaknesses in their theories and you are becoming a major pain in their theoretical posteriors.
Therefore, the “truthers” have found a way to get thermite into the human body. Did you touch any paper from the “truthers” or drink/eat anything at the UVSC event? Perhaps there was something on your seat, or something you absorbed into your skin from a handshake of a “truther” just like what happened in a 24 episode?
It is apparent from your survival that the “truthers” have not yet perfected the thermite reaction in the human body because it was not strong enough to melt you. However, next time you could find yourself turned into a heap of molten flesh as your body collapses from the thermite reaction to iron and other trace metals in your system. As a precaution, I suggest you immediately refrain from all vitamins and food that contain iron and other trace metals.
I shall call this hypothesis Controlled Explosive Homosapien Demolition.
after kicking his professional career into touch when he embraced this foolishness, i think prof. jones has nowhere left to go other than trying to eke out some kind of lonesome existence on the kook circuit and singing the medley of looney-tunes with alex jones et al. your attempts to hold this man to task one relevant point at a time are admirable but destined to fail i think. he can now never retract his badly researched theories without looking like a complete prat.
still, you do a great service to the final truth in exposing the man and his septic methods.
keep up the good work
pete
Cronk,
I am aware that there was some damage to WTC which was caused when steel girders flew some 350 feet as the North Tower collapsed, although that damage does not appear to me to be enough to cause such a collapse. Several dubunking sites say that FEMA first determined the damage to be light but then, after more investigation, they found that a large section of the tower had been “scooped out.” That is interesting language and I have yet to see photographic evidence of this scooped out area. One of the writers for Popular Mechanics claimed that he’s seen photographs of this scooped out area, but these photographs haven’t been released to the public.
I’d like o point out one very important thing here, Cronk. In your defense of NIST, while you are carrying water for the shills at Popular Mechanics, have you even considered that you are defending an unsupported, unpublished hypothesis. NIST’s theory of collapse is so undeveloped that, by their own words “This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.” It might be noted to that the “scooped out” observation is a product of Popular Mechanics.
I bet you haven’t even seen this admission by NIST: “NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse.” Dang!!! Hypothetical blast events, sounds a heck of a lot like controlled demolition, doesn’t it.
See this link for the source of NIST’s comments: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
NIST’s comments also don’t address the squibs that were caught on multiple video views of the collapse. Squibs are a sign of controlled demolition and they are present in every videotaped controlled demolition I have seen, including the collapse of WTC 7. Tell me, Cronk, what caused the squibs if there were no explosives?
Many people have tried to excuse Larry Silverstein’s comment that they had decided to “pull it” by saying that he was referring to the firefighters in WTC 7, but the fact is there were no firefighter in WTC 7, the fires there had been allowed to burn without being put out. So what the heck was Silverstein referring to when he said they decided to “pull it?”
Here is his quote in it’s entirety: “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
How in the hell would they know to watch for the building to collapse unless they initiated it? September 11 marked the first time a high rise steel framed building “collapsed” due to fire, so it’s not as if they had some precedent to refer to. How did they know the building would collapse right after they decided to “pull it?” I don’t know about you but Silverstein’s statement sounds like a causal statement to me. Otherwise they might have waited around all night for the building to collapse.
Pulling a building is a common term for controlled demolition, but somehow if someone says they decided to pull a building and it collapses, just as it would if it were demolished, we should assume it means something else. Sometimes understanding depends on exactly what the definition of is is, doesn’t it?
It is also interesting to note that NBC and CBN refuse to show retrospective footage of the WTC 7… because it looks exactly like a controlled demolition, no plane hit it, and you can even see a series of puffs that run up, floor by floor, just before it collapsed.
In Steven Jones’ interview with Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, Jones demanded that the video of the collapse of WTC 7 be shown, yet they refused and didn’t tell him that until he was on the air.
Anyway, I’ve got to go “pull it.”
If you had read my posts, you’d find photos, video, firemen testimony, and transit and laser doppler vibrometer data of the severe damage and potential for collapse of WTC 7. Please go look at those links and data. It comes from the people on site on 9/11, not popular mechanics – though they may have quoted the firemen.
I have seen that NIST said, in big bold red letters, that it has found “no evidence of controlled demolition” or missles, etc. I have not seen the quote that they looked into blast events, but that could be referring to fuel storage tanks or just about anything else – it doesn’t have to be controlled demolition – and indeed it would seem less likely that they would be talking about controlled demolition given the quote I gave above.
“Squibs” can also be a product of air being compressed while a building collapses. The area of WTC 7 where you’re likely talking about squibs was part of the already damaged WTC 7 that you can see if you follow those links.
There were firefighters in WTC 7 before the collapse zone was put in place. Again, if you read the firefighters’ testimonies, you will see that there were firefighters inside WTC 7 – some even as deep as stairwell C, if I’m remembering correctly, which is in the center of the building and they testified that there was damage to that stairwell, which is where the estimate of half the depth of the building being “scooped out” as the firemen put it.
They knew to watch the building collapse because it was predicted hours before it happened and all of the firefighters were saying the same thing – that they were basically standing around outside the collapse zone – after being “pulled” out of the area – waiting for WTC 7 to collapse on its own because of the massive damage that it had endured. Please read the firemen testimony and you’ll see how this all fits together.
I think Silverstein was excited about how a decision that he and Daniel Nigro (the fire chief on the other end – you can also read his end of that phone conversation if you follow the links I have provided) ended up accurately predicting the collapse of WTC 7 and how that prediction, along with the decision to pull the contingency of firefighters out of the area ended up saving lives that day and that’s what he was talking about in that PBS interview.
NBC and “CBN”? probably didn’t show WTC 7’s collapse because it’s fairly boring – but that’s moot given everything I just typed above.
Good luck pulling it. I think.
Cronk,
First the firefighters may have been in the area but they certainly weren’t in building 7.
Second, they agree that it was damaged. Some even said it was leaning. If a leaning building falls on its own it WILL NOT fall straight down. It will follow the path of least resistance which means it will fall the direction it is leaning. That is simple physics. Unless the building is damaged equally on all sides, and the photos show it was not, then it would not fall straight down with all sides collapsing simultaneously.
Third, the squibs appear many floors lower than the impending collapse and they move UP the building during the collapse. Several different videos show the squibs moving up the building during the collapse and this is not possible if the squibs were created by compressed air. If they were compressed air they would move down the building as the floors collapsed, not upwards against the direction of the collapse.
Fourth, Larry Silverstein clearly said that the fireman said “pull it.” It’s nice of you to give him the benefit if the doubt here, but I’m not willing to do that. He made millions, even arguably billions, of dollars from 9/11. He is a suspect in my mind, therefore he should not be given the benefit of the doubt.
Neither NIST nor FEMA have given a final report on why WTC 7 has collapsed. It is 5 years later and we are supposed to belive that the government couldn’t perform a proper investigation in that time period.
According to Online Journal WTC 7 contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud information, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions.
The money Silverstein made when the WTC buildings collapsed is miniscule compared to the amount of money involved in the various investment and security scandals that were no longer investigated due to the loss of essential files in the WTC 7 collapse. What a coincidence! When multiple people make millions of dollars from an accident or terrorist attack, then maybe, just maybe, it’s common sense to think they may have had a hand in orchestrating that accident. In legal terms such a thing is called a motive. I guess my motive is just your coincidence.
If you’re not going to look at the evidence I’ve conveniently gathered for you, I see no reason to continue discussing this with you.
I have read the testimonies of firemen and other emergency personnel who were inside WTC 7 and all around it. Have you read these testimonies yet? Please read them.
WTC 7 was leaning slightly to the south and it fell slightly to the south as seen in the videos. The collapse mechanism is explained by structural engineers in my first Jones post. Please re-read it and then explain how your explanation of how it “should” have fallen is more valid than theirs given that they are structural engneers and that they have knowledge of the structure of the building and I don’t think you do. Be sure to include which structural components you think were damaged and failed and how that would affect how it would have fallen.
It’s impossible for puffs of air to go up during a building collapse? If the floors are connected and being pulled from failure at the bottom, I would expect the shock wave to be going upward.
Have you read Daniel Nigro’s end of that phone conversation yet? Have you looked at the http://www.911myths.com Silverstein pages yet? If not, please stop commenting on Silverstein until you know what you’re talking about.
The draft NIST reports have been done for a long time and from what I understand, they handed it off to a private company to finish it. It could be that a damaged building just collapsed and so the timing of finishing that report is not extremely important. You could write them and ask.
Michael,
Just a gentle suggestion. Try absorbing some facts and evidence instead of just mindlessly parroting conspiracy theory nonsense. Because almost every single thing you have posted above is, in fact, complete nonsense.
You have been provided with links to facts and evidence. You really should read and try to comprehend the facts and evidence. You’ll be a better person for it.
Sincerely,
Laurie
Cronk
I agreed that the building was damaged, just not to the extent of the damage. It is interesting to me that you will consider the testimony of firefighters when it comes to a damaged building, but you will not consider all of the firefighters who originally said that they heard and saw bombs going off in the towers, or even the testimony of William Rodriguez. So do you think that firefighters are smart enough to know when a building has been damaged, but not smart enough to recognize bomb blasts? I will accept as true what you have quoted as evidence from the firefighters, but only if you can agree that ALL of the testimony from the firefighters is valid.
Also, many people disagree with the your opinion of building 7.
Demolition expert Danny Jowenko disagrees with you. He says that WTC 7 was clearly brought down by controlled demolition.Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider both Swiss structural engineers say that building 7 was in all probability brought down by controlled demolition. The theory that WTC was brought down by fire is questionable at best.
“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.” -FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)
So far they haven’t released an offical study to discount this statement.
The squibs that I was discussiong that you claim are compressed air are demolition charges. First, as I said earlier they move up the building, second they occur before the building collapses appreciably, and third they occur in a straight line up the side of the building. Air, as you should know, is very compressible. For air to cause explosions out of the side of a building it would have to be extremely compressed, which shouldn’t occur in a building that has just started to fall and hasn’t fallen appreciably. Second compressed air should take the path of least resistance, which is not likely to be a straight sequential line up the side of a building.
Finally, I’ll have to agree with one of your points, the squibs are caused by compressed air. Air does, in fact, become compressed in the presence of explosions and those squibs are direct evidence of explosions. Watch the video if you disagree:
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
Now that’s a good question. Yes, I believe firefighters can testify about the damage and collapse potential of a building – that’s their job. I also believe they can testify about explosions (not bombs) happening.
The funny thing is that when you see the quotes from firemen about explosions, the CT’s usually take them out of context. I saw one where the fireman was saying that he heard explosions. The CT’s cut and pasted that quote out of context. The rest of the quote said that he thought that the explosions were probably A/C equipment, transformers, or even part of the collapse, since some were happening during the collapse and some were before. He said that having explosions in that situation was expected and pretty normal.
In case you didn’t read my post carefully, I didn’t say WTC 7 was brought down by fire, but by massive structural damage – and fire might have helped too. The structural engineers and demolition experts you mention probably didn’t know that the south side was massively damaged and so it would make sense that they’d say that it looked like a controlled demolition because it really did look like a controlled demolition. That doesn’t mean it was one though. And given the additional information about the collapse potential, it makes sense that it would fall down.
As for William Rodriguez – the janitor in the basement – His testimony was that the cement cracked, the ground shook, and one of his friends was burned by flames shooting out of an elevator shaft. About one second later, he heard an impact from way up high in the building.
He then made some assumptions about what had just happened. These assumptions are what people quote. He assumed that a bomb had gone off in the basement about one second before the plane struck the building. I think that’s probably what I would have thought at the time given the experience he had.
I’m not a physics major, but I know the speed of sound (or a shock wave) in steel and in air. I also know about how far he was from the point of impact. I calculated how long the impact would take to get to him through the steel vs. the air and there was about a one second difference.
This is just my own opinion, but I think the following scenario is possible. The plane hit the building’s core, sending a shock wave down the steel core. This shock wave would cause a lot of damage in the basement since that’s where it would end up.
The shock wave then arrived one second later through the air. The airplane exploded, sending ignited jetfuel down the service elevator (there are only two elevators in the towers that go from the basement all the way to the top – the rest stop a third and two thirds of the way up where you must transfer to another elevator), burning his friend in the basement.
So, I think it’s at least possible that his testimony could fit into the official explanation of the events of that day, but I’d like to see a real expert look into these details rather than me.
I have seen that FEMA quote, but if you look at my first Jones post, you’ll see that NIST’s explanation is more complete and actually goes through a possible collapse scenario given the data they had access to.
The dust puffs you speak of are at the top right side of the building when looking at the from the north. That area was damaged before the collapse (as shown on the photos and video of the south side – you did go look at them, right?) and that area had no windows in it at all – they had all been destroyed. The puffs only come out of this previously damaged area. They come out after the mechanical penthouse disappeared into the building and one frame after the entire building had begun collapsing. No great pressure needed when that part of the building had already been destroyed in that area.
P.S. Here is one photo of that damaged corner just so we’re both looking at the same photo:
Look a third of the way down this page: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
The damaged area matches the location of the “squibs” shown at the link you posted:
Nice theory about the blast, but there were many people, some of them firemen, who observed blasts numerous times after the plane crashes and before the collapses:
“Shortly after 9 o’clock … [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit – the first crash that took place – he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device – he thinks, he speculates – was probably planted in the building. … But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place.”
Another firefighter said: “…then somebody said that they saw an airliner go into one of those towers. Then, an hour later than that we had that big explosion from much, much lower down and I don’t know what caused that.”
Another witness: “I spoke with some police officials … and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center … may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it.”
“I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.” [Craig Carlsen — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]
Source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
If you watch videos of the towers you’ll note that there was the rumble of an explosion BEFORE each tower collapsed. This rumble was recorded by multiple people and evidence can be seen of it when video pictures shook for approximatelt 6 seconds BEFORE the first tower collapsed. Smoke can also be seen rising from the base of the tower BEFORE the first tower collapsed.
I lost track of time. You start to hear this rumble. You hear this rumble. Everything is shaking. Now I’m like, what the hell could that be. I’m thinking we’re going to get bombed. This is an air raid. You hear this thunder, this rumbling. Then you see the building start to come down. Everybody’s like, “Run for your lives! The building is coming down!” [Jody Bell, E.M.T. (E.M.S.)]
“We felt the ground shake. You could see the towers sway and then it just came down and I never looked back once I started running.” [Lonnie Penn, E.M.T. (E.M.S.)]
“…all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet. … The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.” [Paul Curran, Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]
These reports concur with the video evidence. Amazingly enough, these reports concur with the seismic evidence. Interestingly enough,
Popular Mechanics, in an attempt to debunk this “myth” didn’t bother to publish the actual seismograph readings which show a large seismic spike occurred before each tower completely collapsed (again watch the videos and you’ll see that these spikes occur before the collapses).
Source: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm#8
William Rodriguez was not the only one to observe blasts before the towers collapse. Several firefighters observed blasts and assumed that they must be the result of planted explosives. Firefighters should have some experience fighting fires and should also be aware of likely explosion hazards in burning buildings, but apparently they were fooled:
Lou Cacchioli, Firefighter in WTC 1: At that point, Cacchioli found one of the only functioning elevators, one only going as high as the 24th floor … “Tommy Hetzel was with me and everybody else also gets out of the elevator when it stops on the 24th floor,” said Cacchioli, “There was a huge amount of smoke. Tommy and I had to go back down the elevator for tools and no sooner did the elevators close behind us, we heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator. Luckily, we weren’t caught between floors and were able to pry open the doors. People were going crazy, yelling and screaming. And all the time, I am crawling low and making my way in the dark with a flashlight to the staircase and thinking Tommy is right behind me. “I somehow got into the stairwell and there were more people there. When I began to try and direct down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although it’s hard to tell, but I’m thinking, ‘Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!’
See http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html for further discussion about explosions.
So, what do you think about the other topics in my previous comment?
Micheal… posting the writings of known neo-nazis taken from white supremacist websites?
There are people who aren’t members of the church who can see what we are writing here. Think of your higher obligations. Don’t hand out free ammunition to the Ed Deckers of the world.
And for crying out loud… consider your sources for some of this garbage. This is the SECOND time I’ve caught you linking to hate sites.
I assume that michael is just posting links and focusing on the content without knowing what each site is about.
I didn’t notice the sources but it does make you wonder about who’s siding with each of the theories out there for different reasons…
Both serendipity.li and rense.com (both of wich Micheal has linked to here) have large sections detailing why, according to them, The Holocaust in europe under Hitler never happened.
Christopher Bollyn (whom Micheal links directly) is a frequent guest on former KKK imperial wizard David Dukes radio show, Bollyn is himself a Holocaust Denier who used to work for the so-called “American Free Press”. A fringe publication with it’s own extensive ties to hate groups and even advocated Adolf Hitler for the Nobel Peace Prize on it’s website.
Christopher Bollyn was recently fired from AFP, after he accused his bosses of being controlled by the jews.
As for the actual content of Bollyn’s article, if he managed to get the death toll of one historys worst atrocities wrong by a margin of six million entirely because of his hatred for the victims, then I don’t believe anything he says can be trusted.
You know, Cronk, you still haven’t addressed the shaking that was observed on several videos of the towers about 6 seconds before they collapsed. You can site sources that promote different opinions than mine, but at least explain to my why you think your sources are more valid. Am I lying about the observed shaking? Perhaps it was a coincidence and the people who described it happening before the towers collapsed were delusional. Yes, it was a coincidence! Never in the history of modern construction do steel framed high rise building collapse as a result of fire, except on 9/11. Then 3 collapse. I am tired of the coincidence theories. According to your logic, all of the completely improbable events of 9/11 are coincidences.
Apparently you eat the garbage spewed out by the Whitehouse about not knowing beforehand. Then later its ok to hear “Oh we were briefed , but we didn’t know beforehand.”
The stock trades. Hey, I bet the SEC knows who made those trades. You are not interested in finding out the truth if it undermines your confidence in King George and his cronies. How did they know within hours of 9/11 who all 19 terrorists were? I know, you don’t really care. Please don’t pretend to care as you lambaste Steven Jones while our president gets away with murder.
Two seperate sources agree that over 650 thousand Iraqi’s have been killed. Is that enough blood for you yet. How many damn terrorist have been prosecuted. Well let’s see theres Richard Reed, the idoit shoe bomber. There’s Jose Padilla, and almost all of the charges against him have been dropped since there is no credible evidence for them. There was that Canadian guy who was kidnapped and sent overseas to be tortured, but wait, he was found innocent. Don’t forget the hundreds held in Guantanamo without charges for years. Is this America or am i missing something?
Our economy is falling apart, the dollar is collapsing and we continue to pour billions into Iraq. There are more U.S. deaths in Iraq than occurred on 9/11. Wow. We must be winning the war on terror. What does Al Quaeda mean, it means the database, that is the CIA database of Muslim agents. The Al Quaeda our media tells us about is a hoax. That’s common knowledge in Britain, but not in the U.S. where most people buy all of the crap the government sponsored media feeds them.
Cronk, you are not willing to look at the totality of evidence and come to a conclusion. Our government was involved in 9/11 and the subsequent coverup. You can look and find evidence for both viewpoints, but your view is clouded by preconceptions. I used to suffer from those preconceptions, I I discarded them when I saw a great deal of documented proof that our government is not the benign entity I once believed. Many more people think that Bush is more evil than Saddam was. Maybe the world is full of idiots who can’t think, or maybe they can see things we aren’t allowed to see here in “The land of the Free and the Home of the Brave”. Enough said.
Perhaps the shaking was some of the core columns failing just before they all did as loads were being transferred to the core little by little through the hat truss as each floor failed? That sounds more likely than explosives, given the rest of the evidence. If you had read about Asif Usmani’s work, like I told you to, you’d know this.
I think the sources I’m citing are more valid because they contain evidence that the other sources haven’t even heard of before. The more evidence, the better picture you get. And this is photographic and video evidence that you haven’t even seen before. Why do you not go look at what I’ve handed to you?
Stop regurgitating the “steel structures have never fallen due to fire” mantra. They didn’t fall due to fire on 9/11 either. They fell due to damage and fire. This is pretty straight forward.
They are not coincidences – 2 airplanes hit 2 towers and damaged them, the fireproofing was blown off 3 floors and fire was on those entire floors all at once. The building was not designed to handle that scenario and so the floors expanded, buckled and transferred loads to the core one by one until the core finally gave way and a complete collapse occurred. Part of the north tower then damaged WTC 7 and it eventually collapsed too.
Did you watch the video and look at the photos of the south side of WTC 7 yet? Even Leslie Robertson agrees that the towers should have fallen as they did that day. He was one of the structural engineers who designed the towers and he said, during an interview with Professor Jones within the past few weeks, that the towers collapsed as expected given the circumstances. Did you hear that interview?
None of the evidence I have presented or quoted has come from the Whitehouse.
See here about the stock trades – http://www.911myths.com/html/selling_amr.html
AA stocks were falling because of impending layoffs, rumors just before 9/11 of them retiring their entire 727 fleet by end of year 2002, poor Q3 performance predictions, etc. weeks before 9/11.
Did you know these things? If not, then I have just given you additional information that you could have found a week ago by following the links I have already given you. Go research it more and then state your opinion. I really wish you’d actually go to the links I’ve given you and learn more about these things – you’re wasting time by bringing up these things that have already been addressed.
Knowing who the hijackers were seems like an easy task. Could it be that they looked at the ticket reservations and saw 4 or 5 Muslims on each plane who were already under investigation while the rest of the passengers were John and Jane Doe types just flying to/from relatives’ houses and work obligations? That doesn’t seem like rocket science.
I’m not lambasting (to beat or whip severely or to reprimand or berate harshly) Professor Jones at all. I’m explaining my interactions with him and the problems I see with his research. He is a nice guy from what I’ve experienced, and I have never attacked his character or person. Doing so would be wrong and useless. I’m glad you actually mentioned Jones in your comments on my article about Jones! 🙂
Don’t set up a straw man and put it on me that I’m warmongering. I hate war as much as you do, but I also don’t agree to peace at any cost. If you have such a great plan on how to run the war on terror, please let us all know how you’ll prevent the next terrorist attack on our soil. Yes, closing the borders would be a good first step – our government has proven to be completely impotent on that issue. What else? You can’t just complain about how this is being run without having a solution of your own – let’s hear it.
Please cite your source on Al Qaeda meaning CIA database of Muslim terrorists. I’d like to see how reliable that citation is.
The ironic thing here is that you just accused me of not looking at the totality of the evidence, but you, through your posts, have proven that you are not looking at or are even aware of the additional information and evidence that I have been gathering up and handing to you for free. Strange. And most of what you’ve brought up so far, I and others have researched and have a page that summarizes what I and others have found already.
You didn’t know about this additional evidence before I handed it to you (and apparently still haven’t visited most of the links I’m handing to you) but still pretend to be able to make an accurate assessment of the situation. Stop that. Go research further before speaking. I don’t think our government is benign – stop saying that I think it is. Another straw man argument.
Many people used to think the world was flat. The logical fallacy you just used was an “argumentum ad populum” or “appeal to the people”. Just because “many people think Bush is more evil than Saddam” doesn’t make it true. If it did, we’d still be living on a flat planet. Actually, according to “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” the earth is “banana-shaped.” 🙂
You assert that my view is “clouded with preconceptions.” Please list my preconceptions, since you assert that you know what they are.
No hard feelings though – I really like how motivated you are.
Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20051120&articleId=1291
Since you support the lie that was used to initiate the wars in iraq and Afganistan you are a warmonger. Since you support a president who is willing to kill 655,000 Iraqi civilians in an unjust war that should have ceased who Hussein was cpatured you are a warmonger.
Look up the name of Alfred Wegener. Was the scientist who proposed the concpet of continental drift yet he was ridiculed by the establishment even though his theory explained the evidence. You seem to have the roles reversed here. The flat Earthers were the establishment and they fought any disagreement with their “observed facts.” The government (the establishment) is fighting hard to convince people that they did not have a hand in 9/11. You and people like you who continue to buy the government’s spin and lies are the flat Earther’s. In the public eye, you are already starting to look like idiots. Most people do not believe the government’s offical story.
Preconception one- the government won’t lie to me. You display that preconception every time you cite NIST or FEMA as an authority for what happened on 9/11. If the government was involved then they would obviously spare no expense making sure their lies were bought by the public. Several members of the 9/11 commission have already claimed that the investigation was compromised. Heck, the Jersey girls had to fight for over a year just to get congress to allow an investigation.
Preconception two-certain ‘trusted’ sources don’t lie or distort the truth. You illustrate this preconception every time you cite a source without directly addressing or analyzing the counter argument. Popular Mechanics gets most of their funding from defense contractors, yet what they have to say about government involvement in 9/11 should be trusted. They are just as guilty of bad science as some of the crazed 9/11 theorists out there.
Perception three- the government’s account of 9/11 makes sense. The government has been caught in multiple lies about 9/11 from NORAD to the Whitehouse to the 9/11 commission, yet you seem unconcerned. Therefore I must assume, that you buy the government’s lies about 9/11.
By the way, you theory about how they found out who the hijackers were is a nice theory but not correct. The government’s official story about how they found the identities of the hijackers was so ludicrous that they eventually stopped saying it.
Tell me, Cronk, why do you believe the hijackers were who they were claimeed to be? Do you have any evidence other than “That’s what I heard on TV.” Another piece of evidence that supports preconception 1.
Steven Jones has been pictured in HUSTLER magazine.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=16569875&blogID=213411178
(Photo scans of the magazine cover and article, work safe. You can look at it and still pass your PPI).
“Many more people think that Bush is more evil than Saddam was.”
This has got to be the most retarded thing I’ve read all day (and I’ve read a few whack-job websites today, this IS an acheivement).
Virtually the exact same thing could have been said of Joseph Smith in his day and age. He was murdered while in state custody in Illinois and Illinois authorities did nothing about it. His followers ordered shot on sight by the governor of Missourri, an order with stood for a century and a half.
As a member of the church, do you really want to follow this line of reasoning, Micheal?
michael,
I deleted some of your comments because I’m not going to play the conspiracy theory pattern game with you any longer. I played it for a while with squibs, rumbling before the collapse, etc. but I will not do it any more.
Let’s go over this one more time: Did you notice that my original post is about Professor Jones? You ignored that topic entirely and brought up a few other topics instead – that’s the conspiracy theory pattern. I was kind enough to let you get away with that and I actually addressed the new topics you brought up just to be nice and show you that I had done my homework on 9/11.
You took advantage of that and ignored the evidence I brought up against “squibs”, rumbling before the collapse, and many other items I responded with evidence to. Then you went and brought up several more topics – the conspiracy theory pattern strikes again. This leaves everything we’ve talked about and the new evidence I have brought to you completely unresolved and ignored in your mind – “because there’s all this other stuff” so it all has to be true, right?
If you decide to comment on the issues contained in the post, I’ll let the comment through. If not, I’ll delete it. If you want more freedom of speech than that, find a 9/11 forum to argue on.
I could keep arguing with you and giving you more and more information, like the fact that if the U.S. government is so smart to have been able to pull off 9/11, how could they be so dumb to not say the hijackers were from Afghanistan and Iraq, and make sure they were not alive somewhere?
Your listing of my preconceptions are false. I have never said I trust the government like you are implying. I actually don’t – that’s why the only NIST quotes you’ve seen from me are brought up by Professor Jones saying that NIST doesn’t address demolition or the WTC 7 collapse, but they do at least mention they have found no evidence and they do give an explanation of the most likely collapse sequence based on the data at hand. You failed at discerning what my preconceptions are – I wonder if you are also failing at discerning the hearts and minds of the members of the government and military that you are accusing as being liars and murders.
I’m not following the government at all – I really don’t care what the government says, I go to the photos and direct testimony and leave people’s interpretations out of it as much as possible. It’s a coincidence that what they have said matches some of my beliefs based on my own research. They don’t match me on everything though.
Here’s a summary about the hijackers still being alive that I agree with: http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
Here are several other topics about the hijackers: http://www.911myths.com/html/hijackers.html
Again, if you had read this additional information I gave you that you have never seen before and actually look at the in an unbiased manner, I think your arguments would be different.
At the end of your last comment, you quote me with “” marks as though I had said something and then you say that that quote is another piece of evidence that supports preconception 1. If this is how you do research then I don’t trust you any more.
All right, Cronk, please educate me. Exactly where can I find an official flight manifest for flight 11? I can find a variety of passenger lists created by news networks, but I can’t find an official manifest.
By the way the “manifest” on the 911 myths site is a graphic created by The Boston Globe and not an actual manifest.
Greeeeeaaat… now Mikey wants us to play “hit the moving goalpost”.
Classic conspiracy theory pattern.
I’m sure you can find one by contacting American Airlines directly. Again, if you have something to say about my original post about Professor Jones, please do so.
And if he does get manifests from AA or UA, he will say they are faked.
He did this in rersponse to the Osama confession videos, remember?
It’s been 5 years and AA has not released an official manifest. the source you cited, Cronk, does not have an official manifest. Rather it has a diagram from the Boston Globe that the site claims is a manifest. The problem is not with me, it is with your source. You know, the sources you said I don’t read?
You see, after our last interaction I decided that I needed to start from the beginning in order to avoid all of the conflict and confusion. So I started researching the flight manifest for AA Flight 11. I figured that if i could get a copy of the origianl manifest with the hijackers names on it then that would show conclusively that I was wrong when I said that the hijacker’s names were not on the manifest.
In all of my searching I found a number of passenger lists from AA Flight 11. These lists were often cobbled together from a variety of sources and many of these lists varied slightly, which seems odd if the information is from the airlines, but I was never able to find an official manifest. The closest I could find was a Boston Globe article that says they made a diagram of the passenger’s positions on Flight 11 by looking at the official manifest. As far as I could tell, though, the Boston Globe is the only news organization that has claimed to have seen an official manifest. As a researcher, you can see the problem with the Globe as a source for the information since they are a secondary source, rather than primary. I am also interested in knowing why the Boston Globe was chosen to see this information and other major news organizations weren’t.
After countless hours searching I decided that I had better just give up and accept the Globe diagram as the best source I could find. So I decided to search early news reports to find if any of them listed the hijackers that were listed on the Globe’s list. What I found was interesting and informative, to say the least.
rcronk, can you tell me your e-mail address? I would like to contact you about something important. You can create a new e-mail address if you like.
Debunking911 – I’ll send you an email…
Hey Cronk,
I stopped my comment earlier so you would hae the opportunity to refute me before I made another point. Do you agree that there was no original flight manifest posted for Flight 11, or not? Perhaps there is and I just missed it. I figured it would be unfair to continue to another point before we discussed that one.
michael – thanks for looking at one of my links. I really appreciate it. I’ll look around for an original or I’ll contact AA for it and whatever we find, we should give to http://www.911myths.com to further the cause. Thanks. I really do appreciate you being willing to start over and just go out looking for evidence.
If your next topic is related to my original post, then please continue. If it is not, perhaps you could start a thread at the site I listed in my last comment and let me know where it is and I’d be glad to discuss each point individually over there as it is a more appropriate location for such a discussion. Thanks.
Hey Cronk,
Have you blocked my comments now?
Nope – Unless they’re not related to the original post. Of course, I’m not the only moderator here. Did a comment of yours get lost somewhere?
I can find one quote where a firefighter talks about using transits to determine if the building was unstable, but transits would not be very effective by themselves since they would tend to pick up a lot of background vibrations from heavy equipment and other sources.
It’s obvious we still need more data on the vibrometer in order to determine if it was really used on WTC 7, but I haven’t seen any evidence that it was. to the contrary it only seems to have arrive in time to monitor WTC 4.
I still find it amazing that you are willing to ignore Silverstein’s explanation that they decide to “pull it.” Even the excuse he used to explain that statement when he was cornered doesn’t make sense. He said that he meant “pull the firefighters out,” but we know that there were no firefighters in WTC 7 or even near it well before the collapse.
Some firefighters apparently developed psychic powers on 9/11. Before WTC collapsed, one said “It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”
See the video here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
As far as the diagonal cut columns, to reiterate your point: “This is what bothers me so much about conspiracy theorist methods. They dig deep enough to find something that looks like it matches their beliefs but then they stop digging.” It seems that you fall into the same trap as the conspiracy theorists you lambaste here. I can believe that you researched to find the photo of an excavation worker cutting a steel beam at an angle, and you even found out why they do that. But does that mean that demolition workers don’t use the same principle when setting up a building for demolition? I don’t know the answer and it seems you dont know either , because you didn’t include that in your post. But, I bet you stopped digging when you found the excavation information. Just because you find something done a certain way once, doesn’t mean it is always done that that way, even if it appears so. I have seen excerpts of a history channel video that shows steel beams cut at an angle for demolition purposes, but, of course, that doesn’t prove that the beam in the photo was cut at an angle for demolition.
If you want to debunk the angle cut steel, I think it would be easier to determine a date and time for the photo in question to see if it was taken before or after excavation and debris removal started. If you can find angle cut steel photos that were taken before excavation and debris removal started, that would be good evidence that the building was demolished, but such photos taken after the excavation and debris removal started would be inconclusive.
Hopefully, I directly addressed some of your points here.
Part One-read in reverse order-I can give you the sources if you need them.
Cronk,
“Why demolish WTC 7 when it was going to fall down on its own anyway?” You cite testimony from firefighters as evidence that the building was ready to collapse. Just one question, though: why didn’t any of the other WTC buildings suffer a global collapse as WTC 7 did, even though they suffered a lot more damage from falling debris than did building 7. It doesn’t seem obvious to me that building 7 was about to collapse.
Building 3-The Marriott Hotel was smashed severely when the south tower, fell then even more severely when the north tower fell. Yet when it was all said and done there were about 3 stories left standing with tons of rubble on top.
Building 4- This building was pummeled when the tower fell on it, but the North section remained standing and stable until 9/25, if you believe the laser Doppler vibrometer.
Building 5- Suffered severe damage, much more extensive damage than WTC 7, and it burned furiously for many hours, yet it remained standing until it was demolished.
Building 6- WTC 6 was so severely damaged that some have suggested that it was exploded. In the center of the building all of the floors had collapsed, yet the outer section remained standing.
Building 7- was the farthest away from the Twin Towers and the least damaged. Any debris that impacted WTC 7 had to fly over Vesey Street and approx. 360 feet before impacting WTC 7. WTC 7 Suffered some fires that were not fought, but nowhere near the extreme blaze that WTC 5 endured. Yet it collapsed globally. Indeed it was the odd one out. The other WTC buildings, WTC 1 and 2 excepted, are testaments to just how strong steel framed buildings are. They were crushed by tons of debris, yet managed to stand. I am not arguing here that WTC 7 was not damaged, but even with the testimony of the firemen the damage to WTC 7 was minimal compared to the other WTC buildings. YET THEY STILL STOOD!
I have found 2 different sources that talk about using transit and a laser Doppler vibrometer to determine the stability of buildings on 9/11, but the man using the laser Doppler vibrometer, James Sabatier, was flown in to New York on the evening of 9/11 to monitor building 4 for instability. I doubt NYFD owns such a sophisticated piece of equipment, and the fact that Dr. Sabatier was flown in specifically to use it seems to support this. As one article states, he was flown in on the EVENING of 9/11, which would have been AFTER building 7 collapsed. According to the Global Security article WTC 4 was monitored until 9/25/2001 with no signs that it was unstable.
Thanks for addressing the points in the post – that’s awesome! Let’s take a look at what you’ve brought to the table.
Transits & Vibrometers
It looks like you found the same articles I found. I agree with you – I’d like to see more detail about how transits and vibrometers were used that day. I remember that http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html article showed “Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that [it] (WTC 7) was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.” It didn’t seem as though they were picking up false positives like the vibrometer article ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020916-fcw2.htm ) talked about since they were monitoring it for quite a while and determined to “pull out” of the area. I’ll bring these issues up in some forums I frequent to see if anyone else has seen more information on these topics.
“Pull It”
I agree with you that Silverstein’s comments sounded just like they demolished the building on purpose – I get it – but given that his spokespeople clarified that he was talking about pulling a contingent (“it”) of firefighters out of the area, outside of a collapse zone, and that firefighter testimony shows that this was what was done, and that there are photos of firefighters inside the collapse zone during the time they were fighting the fires (Here is a picture of firemen around building 7’s south side as it burned: http://www.debunking911.com/World_trade_ct._22.jpg ) but before they decided to pull that contingent out of the area, and that there is testimony of firefighters inside of WTC 7, in stairwell C, that heard that a collapse zone had been set up and so they moved out of the area… all that points to Larry not meaning demolish the building but to pull a contingent of firefighters out of the area to save lives and sure enough, after they made that decision to pull it out, they watched the building fall – so they had made a good decision.
From his own testimony, Fire Chief Daniel Nigro says that he is the one who gave the command to create and then get out of the collapse zone:
Quote
The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn’t lose any more people.
We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center [7] collapsed completely. I continued to operate at the scene until probably somewhere around 8 o’clock at which time I borrowed Chief Meyers’ car, because mine was destroyed and went home to say hello, shower, change my clothes and came back to work at approximately between 11 and midnight with Chief Turi.
End Quote
Diagonal Cuts
I dug deeper than what I summarized in my post. See this document: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc starting on the bottom half of page 81 on the paragraph that starts with “A common CT claim is that the angled column…” and look here http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm for more detail.
Why did WTC 7 collapse – others didn’t
I’m not a structural engineer, but WTC 7 had the same “tube in a tube” construction that the towers had and so it was not comparable to the buildings adjacent to it.
Irwin Cantor, WTC 7 Engineer of Record, explains in the following video that they had to do many “tricks” to distribute loads between floors 5 and 7 to the con ed substation beneath WTC 7 (about 1:58 into the video) and that if the structures that were damaged and then failed were between floors 5 and 7, it would bring the whole building down together because of the way everything was interconnected (about 2:45 into the video): http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/wtc7explanation.wmv
See this page to see WTC tower debris hitting WTC 7 along with other photos and video of damage: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
Here’s a directory that contains a bunch of high quality 9/11 photos many of which I hadn’t seen before, that show debris hitting WTC 7 among other things: http://911wtc.freehostia.com/gallery/originalimages/GJS-WTC30.jpg
Here’s a direct refutation of controlled demolition that I found: http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
In the link above, he talks about an article written by Brent Blanchard on the Implosion World website. I found that link to be dead but I found the document here:
Click to access WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
These are extremely interesting and the second document comes from demolition experts. Check them out.
Do you know the current e-mail address of Steve Jones? I am trying to contact him on a matter that we discussed while he was a professor at BYU. Thank you for your help.
I do know it, but I will not give it out because that’s his own private email address. If you would like to post a temporary email to contact you, I could give him that email and he could contact you.
You you could make changes to the post name title 9/11, Steven Jones, and Me – Part 3 LDS Patriot to something more specific for your blog post you make. I liked the the writing nevertheless.