Steven Jones Thermate Hypothesis
I certainly have sympathy for Steven Jones and fully support efforts to protect his academic freedom and free speech rights, but I am concerned about how he's handled his examination of the structural steel from the WTC. Mr. Jones gave the impression that he would be writing a new academic paper exclusively on the subject of his samples of the structural steel from the WTC, and that he would be publishing the results of this study in an appropriate scientific journal after his results had undergone a process of peer review. My understanding is that this has not happened. And while I'm holding out hope that something eventually comes of his study I would say that until such time as Steven Jones releases his studies and further, until other studies duplicate his results, we should be wary of citing his analysis of the structural steel at all.
One of the complaints that is most often leveled at those who investigate the possiblity of governmental complicity in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 is that we do not maintain high standards when it comes to the evidence. I think this critique is often wrong, but until Mr. Jones follows through perhaps we should put his research of the structural steel (and probably the CD hypothesis along with it) in the speculative column.
- misterguy's blog
- Login to post comments
Perhaps we should redouble our efforts!
Controlled demolition is not speculation, it is what happened. And that doesn't depend on the work of one man. Anyone looking at WTC7 falling knows what that is, and it's a logical next step to assume the same of the twin towers given even the preliminary evidence of molten steel and free-fall speed collapse. Enough already--the movement is moving forward with the obvious aces in our hand--go ahead and discourage people, but don't count on it working!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
The collapse of WTC 7
The collapse of WTC 7 certainly looks like a Controlled Demolition on video, and the fact that Jowenko and others are persuaded that it was a CD on first blush leads me to believe that it most likely was a CD, however Jowenko and many others do not believe that the Towers were brought down by CD, and until an unbiased study is done I will not pretend to know what I do not, in fact, know.
there you go again
So as Jowenko goes, so goes misterguy. Sorry but I have a brain of my own that has served me pretty well in the past, and it doesn't need anyone to tell me what the obvious conclusion is from the totality of the observed facts.
You are welcome to your opinions and your caution, of course, but I'm afraid I will have to disagree when you say things I think are wrong. So you in essence are saying that 911 Mysteries is a big old waste of time exercise in speculation eh?
Too bad most people disagree with you!
And pray, how is Steven Jones biased? He like David Ray Griffin and many others have admitted they were originally skeptical of the 911 Truth movement, until they did their research. What criteria will you use to judge bias?
And if you don't mind, on what grounds does Jowenko claim the towers were not CD? I mean, he must have a reason, and be able to explain what we saw (the molten steel, freefall speed, reports of explosions)
Are you really doubting CD Mr Guy? Really? At this point? Wow.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Thinking for yourself is
Thinking for yourself is good, but unless you're willing and able to perform scientific studies on the structural steel, analyze the evidence of the design, look for possible design flaws, and release your results in a way that can be tested, then I don't particularly care what your opinion is regarding CD.
If we want to establish controlled demolition as a fact then we need to enlist help from scientists and CD experts who are willing to do more than simply look at video the way Jowenko did, or who promise scientific studies that never arrive.
common sense
says it was CD. it is the default answer. if you think it was something else, then prove THAT. I won't be speculating, you will. And THAT is the message that needs to be conveyed, not that we THINK this we THINK that. It is OBVIOUS, and frankly, not everything needs a scientist's assurance. Some things are just self-evident, and this is one of them. If you think otherwise, YOU prove it! Prove that explosions were not involved, when people witnessed explosions. EXPLAIN the molten steel we know was there in a way that does not implicate agency on the part of someone. Until you can prove that it could just have happened from plane strikes, YOU are on the defensive here, not us.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
No. I don't have prove
No. I don't have prove anything regarding WTC 7. Those who make a claim are the ones who are obligated to provide evidence to justify the claim, and not the other way around. If the evidence is not good evidence, for instance if NIST's or FEMA explanations and evidence do not make sense, that does not mean you can substitute whatever you'd like to be the case and then demand that those who disagree prove you're wrong.
The cause of the collapse of WTC 7 is not self evident, although I will admit that the CD hypothesis looks like a strong hypothesis to me. Another hypothesis is that WTC 7 collapsed due to poor design or construction. Another hypothesis is that acid rain weakened the structural steel. Another hypothesis is that damage and fire brought down an otherwise intact and resilient building.
I think the first two of the above are the strongest possiblities. None of these explanations have been proven, and even if scientific studies validated one or another of them we would have to be open to revising our explanation of what brought down the towers if evidence came along that discredited that explanation.
consider your reasoning
You make no claim to know what happened without evidence. You ignore the fact that logical inferences are evidence (i.e. the building was destroyed, hence someone destroyed it.) Unless of course YOU CLAIM that it collapsed unexpectedly as a result of something that happened 300 feet away. This despite clear indications that there were people who knew it was going to come down. You seem to imply that only physical evidence is legitimate proof. The physical evidence was illegaly removed and destroyed. What are you part of the Silverstein defense team of lawyers? Hey, you know what? OJ is INNOCENT! Yep, a jury determined it. Or not guilty in any case. See, it couldn't be proved so it's not true that he killed his wife. We'll just never know. Yup. You're convincing me.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Not necessarily...
There still room to believe that people on the ground believed, based on WTC 1 and 2 falling, what WTC 7 was going to fall as well. It is not proof of CD that people on the ground thought the building might fall. It is not proof that LS said "Pull it". These may be supporting facts in a case, but they are not proof. Proof is testimony under oath of people saying "Gee, I saw someone push the button", or "Hey, I heard them say there were going to implode the building", or "You know I saw someone planting explosives", or "Yah, I did it". Proof is forensics that shows bomb residue, Proof is showing cut columns BEFORE they have been cut for cleanup. Unfortunately, there may be little to zero Proof left to prove anything. Even with a new investigation, there is only chance that anything could be proven. Most of what is left is very subjective - comments that may or might not mean foreknowledge or CD, videos that may be interpreted different ways depending upon what expert is talking. All we can do is push for a new investigation based on inconsistencies understandable by the average Joe American.
It's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt...
that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.
I'll list some of the evidence below, without links to back them up , because I don't have the time right now to post them, but here they are:
No highrise building has ever collapsed straight down symmetrically into it's own footprint at freefall speeds from fire and/or structural damage before or after 9/11.
Video tapes from several different angles show Building 7 falling down symmetrically into its own footprint at freefall speed.
The owner of Building 7, Larry Silverstein, is on film admitting that the structure was "pulled", which is a known controlled demolition term.
Larry Silverstein later lied and said his "pull it" comment really meant pulling firefighters out of the building, however, firefighters never entered the building to try to fight the fires in it.
Several witnesses heard and saw explosions while Building 7 was falling.
Audio and video evidence of these explosions were recorded on tape.
Witnesses were warned that the building was going to be "brought down" on purpose.
Some of these warnings were video taped.
Witnesses contradict the government's story about damage to Building 7's South face. Former NYC police officer Craig Bartmer has stated that he walked around the entire building and did not see the amount of damage that the government, NIST and Popular Mechanics are claiming.
The crime scene was destroyed before proper examination of the debris could be examined for explosives.
Molten metal was observed under the rubble pile of Building 7.
Several experts including structural and demolition experts have concluded that Building 7 was brought down with explosives.
If this evidence ever reaches a jury, they will also conclude that Building 7 was indeed a controlled demolition -period.
You're Right CD was the default from the get go
People were talking about bombs and explosions and demolitions a lot on that fateful day. If the media wasn't in the hands of the corporate elite this would have been the default hypothesis.
I agree
I'd have to agree. CD is a theory that needs proof. There are still some outstanding issues and observations that even I have with regards to the WTC 1 and 2 being CD. For example, I'm still puzzled by why, if it is CD, which the videos show the structure crumpling at the impact zones before full scale collapse. If it was a CD then I would expect no such crumpling to occur - just explosive demos. Now maybe this is because the core was pulled first, causing the crumpling to occur before any explosions. There is no way to PROVE this through the evidence that we have today. We are working with VERY LITTLE real evidence. Sometimes reality can surpirse us. I remember the crash of the Flight (xxx) where the plane cart wheeled down the runway - bursting into flames - yet 1/2 of the passengers survived. This I would have considered completely IMPOSSIBLE - yet it happened. Or an iceberg sinking the Titanic - unthinkable at the time - but it happened. Or the 1995 building collapse of the Sampoong Department store in Seoul (see http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/channel/blog/2005/09/explorer_collap...). The point being is that reality often exhibits much more complexity that we can understand by simply viewing an event. Sometimes very complex systems / events act in very unexpected and, at times, unpredictable ways. We have never seen a building structure like WTC fall before - there is no precedence. While this may be used as evidence - it is circumstantial at best. The fact that something has never happened before does not mean that it can't. Quantum Physics predicts that someday I could walk through a wall - but it is likely never to happen between now and the end of eternity - but it could happen tomorrow.
Now you may think based on my comments that I don't believe in CD, which is not true. I believe that it is a strong theory that needs to be proven out. There is still room for the events to be purely the result of a complex chaotic system that is difficult to understand, but yet can exist without CD. To think otherwise is simply not scientific.
this is not quantum physics
the preponderance of the evidence suggests CD. witnesses to explosions, fre-fall speed, molten steel, and projectiles amid the collapse ALL point to CD and not much else. police and detectives, not scientists, should be on this case. it's as if someone had tried to defend OJ by saying well, those may LOOK like knife wounds, but you don't have any proof that they are do you. Like, a knife, or a video of a knife causing the wound. Sure it may be improbable, but how do YOU know it was not a sharp shard of ice, soon melted and evaporated, that fell from the sky? Are YOU a meteorologist??
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Evidence
Sorry you missed my physics point - and yes, very complex chaotic systems lend themselves to quantum uncertainties - but that's beyond this discussion. My point still stands, your making assumptions based on your belief system. You believe it was CD, so everything you see looks like CD. When I show my wife and brother (whose a lot smarter than I am - normally) the videos they don't "see" CD. I showed her a clip of one of the towers falling - it shows a huge piece that seems to be ejected upwards then arches back to the ground. I said - "See there's no way a gravity collapse could do that". She responds - "Haven't you ever dropped a rock into water? What happens to the water? It slashes up. I see the same thing here. Something fell on something, which caused it to be thrown upward." I looked at her with dumbfound eyes - and said "Hmm, I'll have to think about that." The point being is that we can't see the physics of what is happening. Until someone drops (or creates an accurate computer model) of 30 story building on top of a 70 story building from 5 stories up, how do we know what will happen or what it will look like. The fact is we don't have the experience or the computer models to tell us anything. We have our own experiences to say - that doesn't look right to me. But to many people I show the videos to it looks "right" to them. I can guarantee that this is completely different than observations of things that are within our own experiences - like knife wounds.
Now again, I believe that there is strong evidence for CD that goes beyond the WTC collapse itself. For example, the chard cars. A gravity collapse would not likely have produced the heat necessary for this. In my opinion this is strong evidence for CD than anything that can be seen on the video of the event itself. On the other hand, this is still complete speculation on my part.
We need to concentrate on making logical and completely supportable objection to the "official story", not try to be Sherlock Homes and figure out what is real vs. fantasy. We just don't have the tools to do this and when we are wrong it degrades the entire effort.
Rodriguez and others witnessed explosions in the basement
Why do you throw that out as evidence of CD? Do you believe these could have been spontaneous? I know some shills on Daily Kos said it could have been toner exploding... I mean, really....
And folk assumptions like the one that suggests buildings will act like water should really not cause you too much consternation. Water has elastic properties due to cohesion, surface tension, etc. The physics behind the towers' collapse isn't that complicated in principle. Conservation of energy--if gravity is the only force involved, you can calculate the available energy and see if you have enough to pulverize concrete, break thousands of welded joints, and STILL throw out steel beams that embed themselves in nearby buildings. Unfortunately, people are walking around trying to convince each other that they're not smart enough to understand this, so just "trust experts and no one else". Sounds positivel medieval. There WILL be a renaissance, and this is the catalyst.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
A Little Physics for you
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The fact that water splashes up has nothing to do with its elastic properties. Tell you what. You stand next to a concrete wall and I'll shoot a gun at it. Let's see if you get hit with any shards of concrete being blasted away from the wall.
I'm not sure about your comment with regards to the cars. I don't believe the spontaneously caught fire, I think there needed to be energy from somewhere - most likely high energy explosives (not laser beams from outer space).
And with all do respect, you have no scientific model or mathematics to back up your claim about what energy existed or didn't exist to through those beams the distance they traveled. Take a toothpick between your fingers and bend it - then let it slip off your bottom finger and see how far it flies. I didn't need explosives to get it to fly pretty far despite gravity working against it. You have now idea if this is what happened to one or more columns. You don't have the evidence that says anything except - this may have happened. WE, and I'm on your side here, don't have a case beyond a reasonable doubt. WE have good subjective and circumstantial evidence what warrants a new investigation.
"You stand next to a concrete wall and I'll shoot a gun at it. "
"The fact that water splashes up has nothing to do with its elastic properties."
Here your physics is plain wrong. The more elastic, the better a splash. The less elastic the less a splash. Without any elasticity, no splash at all. Ideal elasticity would not loose any kinetic energy. Zero elasticity would transform the original kinetic (or gravitational) energy into heat.
"You stand next to a concrete wall and I'll shoot a gun at it. Let's see if you get hit with any shards of concrete being blasted away from the wall."
I concede this: I'll be hit with some shards, if I stand close enough to the spot where your projectile hit the wall.
But now it's your turn again:
* How fast is such a projectile travelling when it hits the concrete?
* How fast will the shards move away from the wall?
* Was it an "explosion" that made the projectile travel at the speed you observe when it hits the concrete?
* With what velocity would a gun projectile falling from 500 m height (through the air) hit level zero?
* Would the gun projectile falling (not shot!) from 500 m height (through the air) also produce shards of concrete when it hits the ground?
* Uhmm... and where was the comparable "projectile" at WTC1 and at WTC2 when they fell down?
* How fast did those WTC1/WTC2 "projectiles" travel downwards when they made the massive steel columns behave like your alleged water splash?
I think you should now conced that your analogy to a water splash caused by a stone falling into a pond is... not quite appropriate. Do you?
"you have no scientific model or mathematics to back up your claim about what energy existed or didn't exist to throw those beams the distance they traveled."
That's right. We don't know what energy sources existed other than gravity. But we have a scientific model and the mathematics to claim what amount of energy is required as a minimum to let them beams travel away laterally the distance they did.
But see -- that's all we ever need in oder to conclude that neither 9/11 Commission, nor NIST, nor FEMA milkmaid "explanations" do hold any water....
Oh, and where are Commission/NIST/FEMA scientific models and mathematics for the travelling steel beams?? Have you seen any? Can you point me to them?
"Take a toothpick between your fingers and bend it - then let it slip off your bottom finger and see how far it flies. I didn't need explosives to get it to fly pretty far despite gravity working against it."
Look, you're cheating again. ;-)
You didn't let the toothpick fly away based on gravity alone. You powered it with your finger's muscle. And that effective force (which came from an external source) was multiple the force which gravity alone could have contributed.
Anyway, I'm glad we are on the same side of the fence as regards to demand an new investigation. :-)
I appreciate all your
I appreciate all your responses. It proves at least someone here is willing to back up their positions with considerate discussion. This is what I am looking for here - not just people chatting back and forth saying ... "didn't you see that video!!". Good you for, because I love playing devils advocate. But more seriously, Truthers do need to be very careful not to fall into the "wow that sounds good - lets go with it" explanations.