HA! I was there when you asked him for it...

The Power Point viewer is Windows only.

Is there any program for viewing .ppt files using Mac?

- Ø®£Z -,

does this work for you?:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=e25cb1e5-209c-4...

Mon., June 12,
guest:Dr. Steven Jones

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper/0606/20060612_Mon_Piper.m3u

I'm going to say the exact opposite of the trolls from now on.

"Metal rebar coming out of solidified molten metal is possible?

I hope that doesn't mean you're chickening out from questioning Jones, does it?"

Yes and no.

"Great, Jon. Just another question you can ask Jones."

Maybe?

"Maybe?"

I'm sure you would want to know the truth as much as the rest of us.

Those questions remain open and you've got the opportunity to personally ask Jones.

Great response Cloak and Swagger....

Jon,
have you received any further news about the 'certification' or "chain of custody" of Dr. Jones recent sample?

P.S If anyone has listened to Richard Groves' interview today with Meria Heller, I would love to hear some feedback / reviews.
He will be on Jack Blood's show tommorow Tues. June 13 ( I don't think this requires a subscription)

Last call at the 'Truther Bar" ?

road66,

thanks for the new Jones interview link. Adding it to wikipedia now....

anonymous, stop pestering Dr. Jones & us bloggers with your half-baked pseudo-science questions. We don't have time to entertain gov't frauds & quacks like you. Go look for WMD in Iran or something.

Here's an equation for you: S. King = truthout = anonymous = shill

This Jones interview is very interesting: http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper/0606/20060612_Mon_Piper.mp3

Listen to the first caller (at 36:50), He claims to have worked in the WTC in 1989 and heard that the Towers (and WTC 7!) were being considered for controlled demolitions!

Okay, dz. I shall look at that later. I'd read that originally before asking you, but didn't quite understand.

I haven't ever previously used PowerPoint, but I'll gladly see what I can do.

I cant get that ppt file to work. Anyone else having issues?

"I didn't find any questions you had listed asside from this:
Metal rebar coming out of solidified molten metal is possible?"

Jon knows the question. I asked him in this thread:

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/bush-knew-all-over-stockholm-city.html

"Please chill with attitude though, no need to demand things from us when your obvious issues are with Dr. Jones' research."

It is not a demand. It is a request. He is free to ignore it.

"evidently showing the now-solidified metal with entrained material."

What does that statement tell you?

This is what he wrote in his Power Point presentation:

"Previously molten-metal from WTC, cooled shows high iron content (rust) consistent with thermite reaction."

Do you see the word "concrete"?

Jones explicity claims what you are looking at is "previously molten-metal" that has a high iron content.

In fact it is concrete.

This is just one of the many hard questions that the 9/11 Truth Movement must have the courage to ask Steven Jones.

anonymous,

Jon knows the question.
What does this have to do with Jon Gold? He didn't write Dr. Jones' work.

In fact it is concrete.

If your issue is with Dr. Jones making a claim that you believe is false, then take it up with him, or provide detail as to why you believe he is wrong, don't use these comments to provoke arguements while providing little substance and making statements claiming 'in fact' with no source or details to back up your own claim.

Btw, where are those emails you sent to Dr. Jones and didnt get a response from? It should be quite easy for you to find them and post them here, since you seem so adamant that you have a list of questions which he is ignoring - despite the number of people here who have never had issue receiving a timely response from him.

that view of building 5 is awesome..that building looks like it was cooked on the "barby"

yizzo, what view of building 5?
___________

anonymous at 06.13.06 - 7:31 am, even if the lighter-colored material is concrete, it does appear that there is molten and re-solidified iron or steel intermixed with the sample. So even if that is the case, the comments by Prof. Jones that you cite regarding that photograph don't misstate the content of the photograph.

The photograph appearing before "image004.jpg" (i.e., the photograph you have a problem with) in Draft 6.4 of Prof. Jones's relevant paper (i.e., "hotSlag.jpg") shows a yellow-hot piece of iron or steel slag being pulled from the ruins of the World Trade Center. It's dripping at the bottom, hence we know that it must be eutectic (i.e., mixed with, e.g., sulfur [such as from thermate] to lower the melting point, as otherwise construction steel or pure iron would be white-hot at melting temperature).

Hence, the photograph you have a problem with isn't even the least bit necessary in order for Prof. Jones to make an iron-solid case (no pun intended) regarding the fact that molten pools of an eutectic alloy of steel or iron were present in the ruins of the World Trade Center.

For much more on this, see the below article here under discussion:

"Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?," Prof. Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, to be contained in 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, editors (Northampton, Massachusetts: Olive Branch Press [an imprint of Interlink Publishing Group, Inc.], 2006):

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

anonymous--"This is just one of the many hard questions that the 9/11 Truth Movement must have the courage to ask Steven Jones."

With all the astounding unanswered questions surrounding 9/11, this phony seeks to discredit Dr. Jones based on a question re: some photograph! Can you spell s-h-i-l-l?

James Ha:

Building 5 is in the PPT file.

"What does this have to do with Jon Gold? He didn't write Dr. Jones' work."

Because I asked Jon to ask Jones since they are both meeting together.

"...don't use these comments to provoke arguements while providing little substance and making statements claiming 'in fact' with no source or details to back up your own claim."

I presented what Jones has written. He claims concrete is "solidified molten steel."

This is not an issue between me and him. This is an issue of Jones making highly irregular statements and not answering questions about it. Since Jon has told us he is going to be seeing Jones, it is natural for me to ask Jon to ask Jones about it for the benefit of all of us.

I don't see naything puzzling or provoking arguments about Jones own factual statements that are highly questionable.

"even if the lighter-colored material is concrete, it does appear that there is molten and re-solidified iron or steel intermixed with the sample. So even if that is the case, the comments by Prof. Jones that you cite regarding that photograph don't misstate the content of the photograph."

Yes it does misstate the photo. Jones clearly states that it "Previously molten-metal from WTC, cooled shows high iron content (rust) consistent with thermite reaction." Jones neither states that there is other material nor that the block is concrete. Neither has he responded to those who have pointed that fact out to him.

In the meantime, an engineer who knows something about the subject makes it clear over at the baut forum:

"If Jones knew anything at all about building collapses -- which apparently he doesn't -- he'd first consider pure mechanical compression as the source for his blob of debris, which is quite obviously (to qualified investigators) a conglomeration of folded-over concrete chunks with some embedded steel. Mechanical compression produces this kind of aggregation routinely in structural collapses. And no, I don't have links to pictures of them. I learned my engineering away from the Internet."

If nobody is interested in asking Jones about his claims, so be it.

anonymous, in watching the video of the WTC, I see buildings erupting & exploding. I don't need anyone to tell me that this is a collapse due to gravity.

Those buildings were loaded with incendiaries & explosives to bring them down in one fell swoop, as was WTC-7.

You are a despicable shill trying to run interference for the perpetrators of mass murder.

anonymous, in watching the video of the WTC, I see buildings erupting & exploding. I don't need anyone to tell me that this is a collapse due to gravity.

Those buildings were loaded with incendiaries & explosives to bring them down in one fell swoop, as was WTC-7.

You are a despicable shill trying to run interference for the perpetrators of mass murder.
Anonymous | 06.13.06 - 7:01 pm | #
i agree, the shill doesnt even have the heart to go by anything other than "anonymous".

hahaha, no offense. i just spotted that i basically bashed you with that statement as well.my fault.

"anonymous, in watching the video of the WTC, I see buildings erupting & exploding. I don't need anyone to tell me that this is a collapse due to gravity."

Then you wouldn't need Steven Jones.

"anonymous, in watching the video of the WTC, I see buildings erupting & exploding. I don't need anyone to tell me that this is a collapse due to gravity."

Then you wouldn't need Steven Jones.
anonymous | 06.13.06 - 9:47 pm | #

Absolutely. We don't. With all due respect to him, the evidence for explosions causing the fall of the towers is overwhelming. Has anyone here heard of David Ray Griffin? His article The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the official account cannot be true.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20060...
was the first article I read when I stumbled on the Truth, and it is one of the best . Dr Griffin is a theologian, not a scientist.

"the evidence for explosions causing the fall of the towers is overwhelming."

"Dr Griffin is a theologian, not a scientist."

So you believe him because he is not qualified to speak on forensic evidence and structural engineering.

Swell. That is what we all need - faith, not science. Imagine when we call for a new investigation of how the towers fell and we hire a bunch of theologians instead of structural engineers and forensic scientists. Steven Jones is looked to a as "credible scientist" despite just being a physics professors. That's what everbody is hanging their hats on.

The evidence is slim for explosive demolition, Andrew. It amounts to speculation, not proof, claims, not evidence. That's why I call for questioning authority.

anonymous,

did you find your previous emails to Dr. Jones, or want to post your list of questions you said you had emailed him multiple times with no resposne?

anonymous at 06.14.06 - 8:15 am, you wrote:

""
"the evidence for explosions causing the fall of the towers is overwhelming."

"Dr Griffin is a theologian, not a scientist."

So you believe him because he is not qualified to speak on forensic evidence and structural engineering.

Swell. That is what we all need - faith, not science. Imagine when we call for a new investigation of how the towers fell and we hire a bunch of theologians instead of structural engineers and forensic scientists. Steven Jones is looked to a as "credible scientist" despite just being a physics professors. That's what everbody is hanging their hats on.

The evidence is slim for explosive demolition, Andrew. It amounts to speculation, not proof, claims, not evidence. That's why I call for questioning authority.
""

It's ironic that you say you call for questioning authority, when your above argument is predicated on the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.

Merely having a degree in a particular field doesn't necessarily mean that one is correct when said one makes a pronouncement concerning that field.

So also, logically speaking, one is qualified on a subject only insofar as one makes correct statements regarding said subject. And one need not have a degree pertaining to said subject in order to make correct statements on it.

Concerning the molten pools of eutetic iron or steel at the World Trade Center, one need only look up the melting points of particular metals and alloys, the colors of said metals at various temperatures, as well as the highest open-air burning temperatures of jet fuel and office materials (all of which is available in reference works), in order to make oneself an expert on the fact that something burning far hotter than jet fuel and/or office materials was required to form said pools of molten metal.

Excuse me, eutectic, that is.

"It's ironic that you say you call for questioning authority, when your above argument is predicated on the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.

"Merely having a degree in a particular field doesn't necessarily mean that one is correct when said one makes a pronouncement concerning that field."

Of course not. That is the reason that Steven Jones is not necessarily correct just because you believe he is a physics and is unqualified to speak on the subjects of forensic science and structural engineering for which he has no training.

You make the falacious assumption that Griffin is correct versus the hundreds of structural engineers whom you resolutely ignore and whose conclusions remain unrefuted, especially by Griffin.

Both Jones and Griffin have a stated political motive unrelated to any scientific expertise about the collapses. They are looked up to by people with whom they agree politically and not becuase they know what they are talking about.

Did you notice the reluctance here for people to ask Jones scientific questions? Perhaps you know why.

"Concerning the molten pools of eutetic iron or steel at the World Trade Center,..."

"Molten pools" has not been demonstrated conclusively and the heat generated has not been shown to be related to anything other than the burning of the massive amount of flammable debris from the towers, burning that went on for months, burning that is demosntrably impossible for explosives to do for such a period of time.

That knowledge comes from scientists not theologians.

"Concerning the molten pools of eutetic iron or steel at the World Trade Center,..."

"Molten pools" has not been demonstrated conclusively and the heat generated has not been shown to be related to anything other than the burning of the massive amount of flammable debris from the towers, burning that went on for months, burning that is demosntrably impossible for explosives to do for such a period of time.

That knowledge comes from scientists not theologians.
anonymous | 06.14.06 - 7:00 pm | #

Please supply link or withdraw this ridiculous assertion.

"Concerning the molten pools of eutetic iron or steel at the World Trade Center,..."

"Molten pools" has not been demonstrated conclusively and the heat generated has not been shown to be related to anything other than the burning of the massive amount of flammable debris from the towers, burning that went on for months, burning that is demosntrably impossible for explosives to do for such a period of time.

That knowledge comes from scientists not theologians.
anonymous | 06.14.06 - 7:00 pm | #

What flammable debris are we talking about?Please correct me but I thought the towers were pulverised into dust.

Which version is now the accepted one by the world's scientists? It has changed many times since 09/11/01, from kerosene melting hollow steel columns, through office fires weakening steel and causing it to buckle, to the fireproofing being blown out. Well, you just make your minds up, boys, you've had five years already.

"What flammable debris are we talking about?Please correct me but I thought the towers were pulverised into dust."

So the 9/11 "Truth" movement has convinced you.

Perhaps you never bothered to wonder what happened to all the office contents. Why is that, Andrew?

"Please supply link or withdraw this ridiculous assertion."

So you believe explosives can burn for months and to you it must have been that which was burning since no office equipment existed to burn.

Don't you bother to think things through, Andrew?

"Which version is now the accepted one by the world's scientists?"

You haven't bothered to tread the NIST report?