-
Demolition at the WTC was proven fact long before Jones came along, but he initially said that it is "…a hypothesis to be tested. That’s a big difference from a conclusion…" His subsequent concentration on issues like steel-cutting thermite and experiments with newly-discovered materials from unofficial sources allegedly from the WTC site have undermined confidence in demolition. -
That no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon was proven years ago but Jones suggests it is unproven because the Scholars are split on it, though truth is hardly a matter to be democratically decided. -
Jones ignores the enormous energy releases at the twin towers apparently because his favorite theory, thermite and its variants, cannot account for data like nearly complete transformation of concrete into fine dust. Instead, in a blinkered fashion Jones narrows the issue to thermite versus mini-nuke (fission bomb) and predictably finds no evidence for a mini-nuke.  | | Figure 2: Mostly unburned paper mixes with the top half of the Twin Towers. As seen a block away, a large portion of the towers remains suspended in air. | -
Jones neglects laws of physics and physical evidence regarding impossible WTC big plane crashes in favor of curt dismissal of the no-big-boeing-theory (NBB). He relies on "soft" evidence like videos, eyewitnesses, planted evidence and unverified black boxes. When others challenge how aluminum wide-body Boeings can fly through steel-concrete walls, floors and core without losing a part, Jones does not turn to physics for refutation but continues to cite eyewitnesses and videos, thereby backing the OGCT.  | | Figure 3(a): Husky, beefy beams. |  |  | | Figure 3(b): Loss of a chunk (sizable section) out of this tower would be inconsequential. | Figure 3(c): If the tower is viewed as a "towering tree" and the Keebler Elves carved out a residence, no measurable weakening would occur. If their cookie oven set fire to the tree, it would be inconsequential. | On 9 /11 issues where the case is proven and settled, Jones confounds it. On controversies with arguments and evidence on both sides like NBB, he conducts no physical analysis and sides with OGCT. The world asks, what energy source could have transformed 200,000 tons of steel-reinforced concrete into ultra-fine particles within seconds, suspended in the upper atmosphere for days while leaving paper unharmed, hurling straight sticks of steel hundreds of feet, incinerating cars and trucks for blocks, and leaving nary a desk, computer, file cabinet, bookcase or couch on the ground? Jones seems to reply, "Superthermite."
III. WTC Demolition
The demolitions of WTC 1, 2 and 7 were different yet Jones treats them implicitly as if they are alike. The perpetrators essentially destroyed WTC 7 from the bottom up in a gravity-assisted collapse, while WTC 1 and 2 were primarily top-down, virtually unassisted by gravity and destroyed by a combination of conventional and unconventional devices. Jones points to conventional demolitions which leave clean-up crews with only short piles of rubble and remarks, "As observed for WTC 7, also WTC 1 and 2?the Twin Towers?on 9-11-01" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 16].", as if all demolitions are alike and have short stacks. The perpetrators could not order an off-the-rack demolition from aisle 7B to cleanly take down one-quarter-mile tall towers each containing approximately 100 acres of interior space.
 | | Figure 5(b): Demolition gone bad: the leaning tower of South Dakota fails to collapse any further. (mov) (wmv) | | 
| 
| | Figure 5(c): Demolition starts bad: the top 300 feet of WTC 2 tilted as much as 23° before being blown to kingdom come. | Figure 5(d): No one had ever attempted to demolish a building nearly the size of a twin tower, and smoke from WTC 1 helped to distract and cover up problems in destroying WTC 2. | 
   | | Figure 5(e): WTC 1 smoke obscures WTC 2 demolition. | The scrap guys could not believe the twin towers had so little rubble. "It simply did not seem possible that two of the world’s tallest buildings had all but disappeared…In total, 2,700 vertical feet of building, containing nearly 10 million square feet of floor space, were reduced to a tangled, smoking, burning heap less than 200 feet thick."
 | | Figure 6(a): Ground zero rubble was surprisingly small. |  | | Figure 6(b): The rubble was not deep enough to reach the undercarriage of the black Cushman scooter in the foreground and the flag poles in the background look full height. |  | | Figure 6(e): Ground zero looks bombed out because it was. Little of the buildings remain and many husky, beefy beams (Figure 3 above) are gone. There was surprisingly little collateral damage to nearby buildings. |  | | Figure 6(f): An earthquake-induced collapse in Pakistan suggests how much rubble and how little dust should have been at Ground Zero if the government’s gravitational collapse story were true. |  | | Figure 6(g): Another view of the same earthquake-induced collapse in Pakistan. Note there is no dust in the air, validated by the clarity of the shadows. |  | | Figure 7(a): Nuclear blast in Nevada. | | |  | Figure 7(b): The cauliflower top looks familiar.
Listen to the Ace Baker's documentary song, "Blown to Kingdom Come." | | |  |  | | Figure 7(c): The cauliflower top looks familiar here, too. (Mount Saint Helens) | | "[A good option] is to detonate the columns so that the building’s sides fall inward," Jones writes, "…all of the rubble collects at the center of the building"[pdf (7/19/06) p. 19].". Jones seems untroubled by the meager rubble from the massive cores. If all the steel had fallen to ground zero, it would have formed a steel block at each tower base approximately 200’x200’x10.2’ high. If all the concrete had fallen to ground zero, it would have formed a block at each tower base 200’x200’x56.1’ high. Together they would total 66.3 feet tall of pure steel and concrete or over five stories with no air or other debris. This calculation takes no account of over 1,000,000 square feet of aluminum cladding, 600,000 square feet of thick window glass, machinery (including 200 elevators in each tower), wall board, ceiling material, water and water systems, a few million miles of wiring, office equipment and furniture, etc. Jones poses a revealing question-and-answer: Q: "What data finally convinced you that 9 /11 was not just by 19 hijackers? A: Molten metal, yellow-hot and in large quantities…" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 45] 
This statement raises two problems: first, Jones gives credence to the loony OGCT that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" were involved or caused 9 /11 . It makes no sense to embrace parts of the government’s unproven story without independent proof. If a scientist falsifies his data, his career is over. Why not the same standard for government liars? Second, with so many compelling facts like near free-fall speed, symmetric disintegration in their own footprints, almost no concrete left, and many others, it is folly to rely on molten metal as the strongest evidence for demolition, especially flowing from windows in manipulated videos. In downgrading the importance of free-fall speed Jones wrote on July 2, 2006,"…there are stronger arguments at this time than those which rely on the time-of-fall of the Towers. We're still working on those calculations…stronger arguments are growing, IMO." There is no stronger argument for demolition than near-free-fall speed.
 | | Figure 8: This figure forms part of the proof that 110 floors can only hit the ground within 10 seconds if lower floors fall before upper floors reach them. For more, see the billiard ball example. |  | | Figure 9: The tower is being pealed downward. Dark explosions shoot up, while white ones explode outward. Above the white explosions the building has vanished while the lower part awaits termination. | Jones states he was unconvinced about 9 /11 demolitions until he learned about yellow-hot molten metal Jones [pdf (7/19/06) p. 45] yet last fall emphasized speed, symmetry and sequence of puffs or squibs at WTC 7 as evidence for demolition. It was not until mid-February 2006 that he discussed yellow-hot metal pouring out of a WTC 2 window. Our fear is that concentration on molten metal is a distraction and a path to a destination most people do not want to go. There are many ways to cut steel and the exact method is not all that important. Thermite cannot pulverize an entire building and make molten metal burn for 100 days. Something far more powerful was used and Jones avoids the question. IV. Thermite and Glowing Liquid Aluminum Over a year before Jones appeared, Derrick Grimmer, a Ph.D. physicist from Washington University-St. Louis and member of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE), posted a scientific article about possible use of thermite to melt sections of the WTC core. Jones does not cite this work but begins with the WTC study by the government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and its videos and pictures of liquid metal pouring from a window of the WTC 2. Jones does not challenge these data though they appear to violate the laws of physics. Where would heat sufficient to melt "huge" quantities of metal come from, allow it to collect in large reservoirs and pour along unspecified (irrigation) channel(s)? And how could thermite, which is little more than a cutting torch, melt mass quantities of metal [see Figure 14(b) and (c)]. After a confrontation, Jones admitted that Andrew Johnson spliced the videotape but they fail to tell us what was spliced to what and why and what the effect is. NIST claims the pictures and videos were from Reuters and WABC-TV but are they real? They look fake. Who took the pictures? What was the chain of custody? Is there evidence of photoshopping? NIST acknowledges it "adjusted" the intensity of the photos somehow, so they were already doctored. Perhaps it was real phenomena but we strongly doubt it because -
No heat source is specified -
The liquid inexplicably appears to flow from a window rather than the floor and there is no explanation for what surface would support the flow -
The flow changes windows -
The aluminum cladding on the exterior displays no signs of heat or melting despite the fact that iron begins to melt at 1538° C and aluminum alloys begin to melt at temperatures under 660° C -
The flow disappears prior to destruction of WTC 2 as the video jumps.  | | Figure 10(a):NIST reports: "The intensity levels have been adjusted…" NIST does not say if the adjustment was uniform, confined to a particular window or what. The images have been tampered with and therefore are useless as data to scientists. |  |  | | Figure 10(b): Jones’ edited version of the photo ignores the NIST alert that "the intensity levels have been adjusted." He has also used spliced videotapes without identifying they were tampered with. | Figure 10(c): The alleged flow appears in a different window. | We cannot explain how molten metal would pour from a window ledge and then move and pour from another window ledge, although NIST claims the flow performed such a feat within seven minutes of collapse. We need answers to these questions before we become convinced that the event was real and therefore deserves analysis. Jones claims that the pictured flow cannot be aluminum because, "Molten aluminum in daylight conditions (like 9-11 WTC ) is silvery-straw-gray at all temperatures" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 50]. Laboratory experiments in late February 2006 by Wood and Zebuhr (1980-2006) cast serious doubt on Jones’ contention. Jones’ table on[pdf (7/19/06) p. 63]." even documents the various colors of aluminum as temperatures increase. All metals, including aluminum, glow as temperatures rise. The exact appearance depends on the mix of impurities like oil and oxidation in the metal yet Jones argues, "…the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable exception is falling liquid aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through air one to two meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce like other metals, but faintly so that the conditions in the previous sentence falling [sic] liquid aluminum will appear silvery-gray according to experiments at BYU [Jones references himself])." We have no explanation for why Jones would insist, contrary to evidence outside BYU, that flowing aluminum does not glow at high temperatures in daylight conditions. This color chart shows that all pure metals are the same color at each temperature.
At 600°C Al has a minimal glow as all metals do. An electric stove burner, for example, barely glows at that temperature and you may have to turn off the lights to see it. Professor Jones uses the copyright photo below to support his claim that Al has no glow under daylight conditions. Yet this picture is not proof because there is no confirmation of what is being poured and at what temperature. Aluminum begins to melt at 660°C and has low emissivity, as iron does, and this picture just shows something being poured. The bucket or mold may be iron or steel, but they not glowing. If they are cold, the lack of visible reaction in the form of steam or sizzle must be explained.
| 
| 
| | Figure 12(a): Jones uses this picture. [source] | Figure 12(b): Apples and oranges compared, as text below explains. [pdf (8/15/06) p. 69] |  | Figure 12(c): This picture appears to have been taken indoors, in a dark room. If that is "daylight" outside the window, it clearly is not shining in through the window as there are no shadows. In addition, the pot in this picture is more out of focus than anything else in the picture, which would imply a slow shutter speed. It appears that the technician is shaking the pot in an effort to get the aluminum out of it. Fast shutter speeds are used in bright daylight. If the motion of the pot is captured on camera, can this really be considered to be "in daylight conditions?" | If the anomaly observed in the pictures of the south tower is even a real phenomenon and if it is iron, Jones’ favored interpretation, it must be above 1538°C. To rule out molten aluminum in these south tower pictures,aluminum would have to be heated above 1538°C for a valid comparison. Here is an analogy: who would conclude that a liquid at 25°C (room temperature) cannot possibly be water because we all know H2O is a solid at -5°C? No one. Or, is Steven Jones going to rule out "water" as the liquid because "water" is a solid at -5°C?
 |  | (a) Water at -10 to 0°C
2006 Olympic Trials | (b) Some liquid at 25°C
Source | | Figure 13: (a) Speedskaters stand on solid water and (b) a glass of a clear liquid at 25°C (room temperature) | Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges, one metal to another under the same conditions. In the case of an aluminum alloy, it only takes about 600°C to become liquid. We can see that the aluminum pictured at BYU is nowhere near 1538°C because it is solid, it is not flowing, the container and its handle do not glow and flimsy gloves offer plenty of protection. Notice the steam coming off the pot that we do not see in Figure 12(a).
| Figure 13(f): 99.7% pure aluminum at approximately 1,000° C (Wood/Zebuhr). |  | | Figure 13(g): Aluminum and its tungsten boat glow approximately the same, illustrating that the two metals possess similar emissivity (Wood/Zebuhr). Tungsten glows in daylight conditions (turn on your porchlight at noon) and is used in light bulbs because of its high emissivity. Al converges on tungsten’s emissivity at high temperatures. There is no reason to eliminate aluminum as the liquid flowing from the south tower based on alleged differences in emissivity among Al, W, Fe at temperatures of 1500°C and higher. | | Thermite plays a major role in Jones’ work on the demolitions. He concludes that his thermite evidence points exclusively to its use in WTC demolitions based on the testimony of lawyer Robert Moore and 9/11 activist Michael Berger plus his own reasoning that "thermite ejects globs of molten white-hot iron" and is too dangerous to work with. Jones believes that clean up crews at WTC did not use thermite. Yet these pictures from Ground Zero suggest room for doubt. In the tangle of the WTC mess, thermite would be useful to cut steel under conditions of poor accessibility. Nor is thermite as dangerous as Jones suggests. Jones has even used a video of college kids playing with thermite. (wmv) (YouTube)
 |  |  | | Figure 14(a), (b), (c): Maybe thermite was used in the Ground Zero clean up. | What about nanoaluminum for cutting steel? Jones calls it "superthermite" and jumps to the conclusion that it caused the molten metal pools burning 99 days without eliminating competing hypotheses. There is no proof that thermite could cause such long-lived, intense fires. Jones and others might conduct experiments to prove otherwise, but we doubt such a result can happen. "Such molten-metal pools never before seen…with controlled demolitions which did not use thermite, nor with building fires, nor with thermal lances," writes Jones, "Huge quantities of the stuff." Jones asserts "that much thermite was used to bring the buildings down" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 62]." but if proven wrong, there is little or no fallback position. Placing all eggs in a thermite carton may lead to slim breakfasts down the road. Another issue is how the perpetrators could deploy and control the necessary thermite. With 236 perimeter columns and 47 core columns and 110 floors to cut loose in each tower, it might take 31,000 large thermite deposits/canisters igniting in a computerized sequence to bring each tower down. Even if thermite was placed on alternate floors, that would be 15,500 charges in each tower. Then there is the problem of sufficient radio frequencies with 220 floors, each with its own set of frequencies. Professor Jones might give these scenarios some thought. Professor Jones reports that he has analyzed a piece of solidified metal slag from WTC. He provides no documentation of the source or evidence regarding the chain of custody. He concludes that the presence of manganese, sulfur and fluorine suggest a "thermite fingerprint" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 77].". Perhaps he is right but there is no independent corroboration. Can outsiders test the slag? Jones has proved nothing. Demolition is corroborated, proven and undoubtedly involved steel cutters to insure swift collapse of the lower structure, but the cutters were not necessarily thermite. Without proof, thermite advocates put themselves out on a limb.
V. High Energy Devices Thermite is a non-starter to account for phenomena (see 911eyewitness) like these:
1. Disintegration of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine dust (50% of particles under 100 microns in samples from three locations, Dr. Thomas Cahill and his group measured concentrations of particles in ranges from 0.09 to 2.5 microns).
2. Superheated steels ablating?vaporizing continuously as they fall?as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing.This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermate (see Figure 17a below). 3. The North Tower spire stood for 20-30 seconds, evaporated, went down, and turned to steel dust.  | | Figure 15: Steel beams turn to steel dust.  |  |  |  |  | | Figure 16: The same steel-dust phenomenon from another source. |
 |  | | Figure17(a): A video clip of steel turning to steel dust. (gif) (mov) (avi) (gif) | Figure 17(b): Another video of steel turning to steel dust, although CNN’s Aaron Brown calls it smoke.
[Click on image for video, or (mpg) (avi) ] | 4. 33-ton section of outer wall columns ripped off side of tower. 
 | | Figure 18(a): Large sections of outer wall to the left and somewhat hidden to the right blow off the tower.  | | Figure 18(b): What scooped out the middle portion of the building across the street from WTC 2? | 5. Sharp spikes of Richter 2.1 and 2.3 in seismograph readings occurred at the start of both tower collapses. Short duration and high power indicate explosive event, as illustrated by the audio track recorded in Rick Seigel video, 911EYEWITNESS. The abrupt cessation of movement implies no collapse but sudden termination of shifting of debris.  | | Figure 19: Audio signal stops abruptly, indicating no expected tapering off from a "settling process" in the debris pile. Source: [911eyewitness] | 6. Electrical outage over a wide area with repairs taking over three months, suggesting EM pulses. 7. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water and huge rainstorms. 8. Brown shades of color in the air suggest something odd occurred. Air had pH levels of 12 of a maximum 14. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact according to Rick Siegel, indicating complicity in the cover-up. 9. Elevated tritium levels measured in the WTC area, according to Siegel, but not elsewhere in New York. 10. Pyroclastic flow observed in concrete-based clouds must have resulted from explosives, not thermite. Huge expanding dust clouds multiples times the volume of the building, indicating extreme levels of heat in excess of traditional demolition explosives. 11. Some rescue workers and 14 rescue dogs died too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins. 12. Decontamination procedures used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) continuously for all steel removed from site. Constant scrubbing of the site made it look like it was clean enough to eat off of. Officials plainly did not want any outsider to find something.  | | Figure 20(a): Lower Manhattan was not the only recipient of a hose job.  | | Figure 20(b): All new cranes quickly on site (ordered in advance?) and lots of scrubbing.  | | Figure 20(c): New York City makes a clean sweep of it. | 13. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper littered the dust-covered streets. Material with significant mass may have absorbed energy and were vaporized while paper did not. 14. 200,000 gallon sprinkler and water supply systems were in WTC1 and WTC2, but there was no water in the ruins. 15. Many cars and trucks exploded around the WTC and caused burned out wrecks that were not hit by debris. A group of police cars on the FDR Drive had parts roasted. EM pulses may have caused electrical components to explode and burn vehicles far from the WTC site (see Figure 4 above). These data should excite scientific curiosity. Citing a photo of a mushroom cloud atop a tower [pdf (8/15/06) p. 18]. Jones calls it "evidence for use of explosives, like RDX, HMX, or Superthermite (nanoaluminum powder)." Massive mushrooms tops do not erupt from a building imploding from RDX. The towers were not imploded. They were exploded. They were blown to kingdom come. Normally, people look at "what" happened and then try to figure "why" or "how" it happened. There is no good reason to stick to the familiar or conventional in the belief that the perpetrators would not kill citizens with exotic devices. The stone-cold killers would use whatever was in the arsenal and would do the job best, including simplifying the cover story. Jones asks a question related to high-energy-release phenomena: "Could mini-nukes have been used on the Towers?" He explains, "Hypothesis was raised by someone (not me) [so] we do experiments to find out! (Scientific method)" [pdf (8/15/06) p. 149]. We wonder what experiments Jones did with mini-nukes on the BYU campus. Experimental method aside, it is not scientific to bypass data and set off to disprove a circumscribed hypothesis proposed by somebody (a "bad" person?). Jones claims he tested a metal slag (origin unknown) for radioactivity (what kind? what instruments?) and found nothing above background levels. Residents of New York City reportedly detected abnormal radiation on hand-held Geiger counters at the WTC site, though we cannot vouch for the veracity of these reports. While we too doubt a fission bomb was used, Jones’ assertions play no role in our assessment. Tritium would be a telltale sign that an extraordinary device was employed on the Twin Towers. Jones says he tested an air sample (origin and preservation technique unknown) and found only traces of tritium. Until independent researchers test verified samples, there is nothing here but Jones’ word and we leave it to you to decide its value. Jones takes a victory lap ("Mission Accomplished") by saying, "So the evidence is strongly against the ‘mini-nuke’ idea, which no longer be promoted [sic] unless and until the above compelling evidences [sic] can be successfully overturned" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 150]." A promising hypothesis derives from the super fine particles found by Dr. Cahill, so small that they would normally occur only if metals were heated to the boiling point, e.g., approximately 2,750° C for steel, that is, steel vaporized and re-condensed as particles. Since such temperatures were not reached, the process would be something that could extract or neutralize the bond energy of metal atoms. Call it an "alien ray gun." It may be a scalar interferometer: tune two electromagnetic scalar waves so their interference zone extracts energy at a wavelength corresponding to the bonding forces in the metal and it begins to fall apart. This hypothesis necessarily involves secret technology, so it is not a proven but possible explanation for the data. We encourage Professor Jones to investigate. VI. The Pentagon Jones did no research that we know of on the Pentagon incident. Most 9 /11 skeptics believe no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon because the gash was too small, no plane marks left on the building (airliner silhouettes of passage at the Twin Towers, not at the Pentagon even though concrete is brittle and more likely to shatter and show a plane’s imprint), no verified debris, no bodies, no blood, it is physically impossible to land a 757 at a speed of 500+ mph because of the downwash sheet, etc 
| | | |  
 |  | | Figure 21(a): A small hole in the wall, no plane silhouette and no wreckage.If the Boeing does not fit, you must quit (the plane story 9 /11 ). | Figure 21(b): The putting green in front of the Pentagon. | | | |  |  | | Figure 21(c): An airliner would have to hop over the unburned cable spools before hitting the ground floor. | Figure 21(d): Pieces around the car are not burning or burned while the steel hood is burning and burned through and the right front fender is noticeably distorted. Jet fuel does not burn through steel and therefore cannot burn through steel hoods and engines. | "The question of what hit the Pentagon on 9 /11 has NOT reached a consensus among the Scholars group" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 157].", says Jones. The word NOT suggests that people should suspend judgment. Maybe a big Boeing magically shrunk itself and disappeared inside the Pentagon. Voting machines, surveys and Steven E. Jones’ subjective guesses aside, facts are not determined by polls. "Several of the Scholars group argue…perhaps a B737 rather than a B757 (AA flight 77)" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 159]." went into the Pentagon," Jones persists, offering zero scientific evidence for this hunch. If the hoax of a Boeing at the Pentagon is unproven, nothing about the 9/11 hoax has been proven. "We also seek answers as to why there were no air defenses to stop the incoming jet!" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 160].". With no proof of an incoming jet, Jones assumes OGCT. Jones and the scholars should hunt the Boeing.
VII. No Big Boeing Theory (NBB) At the heart of the 9 /11 fiction, we were told that, using only boxcutters, Arabs hijacked four airliners and crashed them in designated locations? Jones sees no real problems with this story. He is hostile to the "no big boeing theory" (NBB), the theory that no Boeing 767 airliners went into either WTC tower, and no Boeing 757 airliners went into the Pentagon or the Shanksville covered strip mine. Advocates usually allow for missiles or other air vehicles flying about, including unmanned (UAV’s), or even smaller planes. Jones’ motivation is unclear, but he applies no physics to the events and fails to study the physical evidence associated with the alleged crashes. An objective scientist, for example, would review data like this silhouette of passage in WTC 1:
 | | Figure 22(a): Silhouette of passage by invincible Boeing 767?  | | | Figure 22(b): Silhouette of passage by Invincible RoadRunner. Hmmmmmm!? | Figure 22(c): Beep! Beep! | No airplane debris was visible in the gash and no verified debris was knocked to the ground below the impact wall. Consider the conspicuous right wing tip mark. If the Roadrunner can fly through an Acme steel plate, a Boeing can too, right? The aluminum airliner nose crashed into the steel wall and five steel/concrete floors, remaining intact. The fuselage disappeared far inside the gash without deformation, no torsion (twisting) and forward wing momentum no greater than the fuselage, despite stout resistance from the tower. In truth, with no direct resistance from the building and powered by full throttle engines, wing momentum would tear the wings from each suddenly-decelerating fuselage. Wing spars are built of strong but brittle forged aluminum and must break off. But back to the government-media fairy tale: As each wing root and its jet fuel and heavy undercarriage crashed into walls and floors, no fuel spilled out and nothing burned across the face of the building, all fuel being carried inside. Since 767 wings are swept back about 35 degrees, each intact wing had to sever steel columns and spandrel belts sequentially over milliseconds, each aluminum forward edge effectively "sawing" through steel columns/belts and steel-reinforced concrete floors with nothing breaking off. Amazing! Despite no structural connection to the main spar, the right wing tip in question survived this assault and then tattooed the aluminum façade, demurely slipping inside each building. Gullible Americans and most American physicists, judging by their silence, join Steven E. Jones in embracing the WTC airplane fiction.
 | | Figure 23: A C-130, about half the weight of a Boeing 767, hit this 10-story apartment building at approximately the 8th floor in Tehran last December and crumpled outside, throwing debris around and spilling burning jet fuel over the impact wall and inside the building. 
| | 
World Trade Center Video Video South Tower collapse 9 /11
 | 
Note just past building 7 is a small amount of debris on the white building behind it. (Building 7 is pile in the upper center-left of the photo. The white building is at the top center-left of the photo.) That building is to the north east corner of building 7. Note about 1/3rd of the east side of the building falling to the north in the photo below.
Here is another photo from over Building 7. The white building is on the left. Note the debris from building 7 which crossed the street and landed on top of the white building.
This suggests the building was split by the penthouse collapses most of the way down. One section went to the south-east while a smaller section went to the north. It wasn't that symmetrical.
Below are snapshots from a video taken from the northeast of Building 7 just as it collapses. Note that it has just begun to collapse and it is already tilting to the south.
Half way through and it's still tilted to the south. Note the west side of the building has come away from the west face around what used to be the 43rd floor. Light can be seen through the east face windows.
Note the angle to the south has increased and so has the space between the west face and the rest of the building. The west face later lays on the Verizon building to the west. While it looks like it's about to hit the ground, it's still almost as high as the white building to the right. That makes it about 20 stories.
If the majority of the building fell to the south-east based on the resulting debris locations, as conspiracy theorists point out, it is evidence for a normal collapse by fire. I think they're right.
The perpetually perplexed will show you a photo of the Oklahoma City Federal Building and say "Gee, that didn't fall. If that didn't fall with more visible damage why should the WTC 7 fall?".
In someone’s need to question authority and seem smarter than the rest, they may forget an important fact. The OKC Federal building wasn't constructed the same as WTC7 and did not have its lower floors on fire for 6 hours. We can see clear as day that the building was not a tube in a tube design. We can see its lower floors weren't on fire. We can see the columns are covered in concrete. All from the same photo the conspiracy theorists use to show us how incredibly intelligent they are.
PLEASE CLICK HERE NOW HISTOTY 9 /11 2001 DOCUMENTARY WTC
Update:
With the lack of even the smallest amount of hard evidence supporting their stories, conspiracy theorists have become more desperate to find anything which could be twisted to support them. Case in point: The WTC 7 was seen in the background of a BBC report while the reporter said the building had already collapsed. The story is that the reporters were given a "script" to say and these reporters stupidly read the lines before the building fell. Plain old common sense can dispatch this conspiracy story.
Why do they choose to believe the more unlikely conspiracy story which suggests that at least some reporters of some news organizations were given a script? Especially when, much more logically, miscommunication could easily explain the video.
Why in the WORLD would they need to give the reporters a head's up??? Why wouldn't they just blow the building up and let them report the collapse as they would have normally?
What most likely, logically happened: While investigating and updating information on the collapse of the towers, someone at the BBC was given a report/press release that building 7 was going to collapse. [Edit: we now know they were monitoring the news from different outlets and that's where they learned of building 7.] According to the fire department, by 2:00PM they knew the building would soon collapse. Reporters KNEW this well before the collapse because there are videos of reporters talking about it before it happened. So we KNOW reporters were given information on WTC 7's imminent demise. We can conclude from this evidence that the fire department relayed information to reporters that the building was going to collapse. By the time the report reached the reporter at the BBC, it may have simply been miscommunicated from "About to collapse" to "Has collapsed". She even starts out by saying "Details are very, very sketchy". That alone should put this to rest. She didn't say 'Sketchy'. She didn't say 'very sketchy'. She said "very, very sketchy".
It wouldn't be the first time reporters got something so completely wrong. They said it was a small plane at first, remember? They said Kerry choose Gephardt for VP, remember? They told the family members of trapped mine workers that their 13 loved ones were alive, all but one, when it was the other way around. Those are just a few glaring examples. I could go on... Reporters rush to be the first one with the news and often do a poor job of getting the facts straight. History is littered with examples of this. Even your average knuckle dragging, cave dwelling Neanderthal knows this. (My sincerest apologies Geico's Neanderthal man...)
Listen to Aaron Brown from CNN say the building collapsed or is collapsing with the building in the background.
I have had on this site since I started it (just under the 12 things we know for sure on this very page) the link to a video with someone from MSNBC saying “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has finally happened.” As the building collapses. That makes CNN, BBC and MSNBC who knew the building was going to collapse. I searched for the MSNBC video because I remembered the media saying the building would collapse before it did. Here is that video again...
How many people knew that building was Building 7 before that day? It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect every reporter to know the names of all the buildings in the World Trade Center. For all they may have known, building 7 could have been one of the smaller buildings which were also on fire.
The downright absurd conspiracy story: The government told many reporters to report something they would have reported anyway after the building collapsed.
A little critical thinking is all that's needed to debunk this nonsense. Why in the world would they make an already unbelievably massive conspiracy into one involving reporters who would LOVE a scoop like that? "Sept. 9, 2001 - EXCLUSIVE BREAKING NEWS! Government about to murder thousands for oil! We have the script!" Can you imagine the job offerings after a scoop like that? Can you say Pulitzer prize? What a hero! Who would pass that up to help a shadowy government commit the mass murder of Americans? This would be MUCH bigger than Watergate! Or maybe this was a planed gaffe to expose this plot? Are we to believe this gaffe is the only way she could have told us? A method which could easily be dismissed as typical poor reporting?
And here is the kicker... Did they really need even MORE people involved? What was the reason they absolutely needed to tell the reporters this? Why haven't any of the other reporters talked? Are most reporters part of a mass murder scheme? How much can conspiracy theorists swallow?
At best, this is an attempt to take your minds off the real issue. Why did the media know the WTC 7 was going to collapse if there were just a few small fires? This is another part of the conspiracy story they don't want you to think about.
Do the conspiracy theorist leaders have one shred of REAL evidence of explosives or anything else which could take down the buildings? Air samples with trace explosive chemicals in it? A memo like the Downing Street memo? A whistleblower who was in on the planning maybe? None of that involves the so called "whisked away steel". They have nothing. They're left to scour the internet for the slightest mistake made by anyone on that horrific, chaotic day. They're left destroying peoples' lives by suggesting innocent people are involved in mass murders.
BBC's response...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
I smell a deliberate attempt to quiet the media. It is not lost on me that the BBC recently created a story which casts the conspiracy leaders in a bad light. What media will want to expose the misinformation and deception of these conspiracy leaders if they incur the wrath of a few fringe lunatics? Apparently, Alex Jones, Fetzer and Co. would like their own shadowy, loose knit government based on fear. B@@!
Another update:
It seems I wasn't far off from what the BBC suspects happened. They even reference the CNN video above.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html
Update:
Here is a first responder with Building 7 in the background during an interview. Note the frustration in his voice because he can't do anything for the building.
First responder: "You see where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it already - the structural integrity is just not there in the building. It's tough, it's.. it's.. You know we can handle just about anything, this is beyond...
This video shows a large rip in the south side of building 7 before it collapsed. Evidence the building was far more damaged than conspiracy theorists suggest. Note the smoke coming directly from the rip and not building 6 as conspiracy theorists suggest. At 1:33 Min into the video someone says (Firefighters and police were the only ones allowed in the area so it is most likely a firefighter or policeman) "Look at the hole in that building... 7 world... that might come down". Anyone seeing this and suggesting no one knew the building was going to come down is lying.
Conspiracy sites like to bring up the 'Symmetric Collapse' of building 7 and claim that the building should have fallen over to the south. They show grainy, dark photos of debris piles which were taken well after 9/11 and a debris pile with a grayish, smoky image of building 7 in the background. They deceptively show the north side which was relatively free of damage. As if the Tower should have reached over to the other side of the building and damaged that side too.
Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11
Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".
And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance. The conspiracy sites agree with this theory but say it never happened. They say the fact that it didn't happen helps prove controlled demolition. But you see it happen here... What will they say now?
"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings.
This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.
Not only does this photo show a firemen who would have been "Pulled" from the area but the fires which may have weaken the building below the east penthouse
PLEASE CLICK HERE NOW HISTOTY 9 /11 2001 DOCUMENTARY WTC
|
Comment deleted at the request of the author. Comment deleted at the request of the author. Comment deleted at the request of the author.  | Hello dear,
I,am 25 years of age.and l see your profile in this site (aristocrattrailers.multiply.com) and I need someone to treat me with care.i have my reasons to contact you about relationship. I have my preferences but unfortunately my account is not sufficient, but I will tell you more about myself and my pictures, please write me at (batistafavour@ymail.com) for more details. Love from Favour. i speak english |
Comment deleted at the request of the author.
| |
