Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says

So... they are sitting here with a straight face, saying that the WTC buildings fell because of fire? RIIIIIIIGHT

http://www.aisc.org/Content/Content...novative_Ideas/FactsForSteelBuildingsFire.pdf


I'm not sitting here saying it fell because of explosions set up before-hand or nothing like that. But I seriously doubt buildings like the WTC, that were built as some of the strongest buildings EVER in history fell because of fire.

Now, a plane knocking out support beams, and the pancake effect does make more sense of the buildings collaspe rather than simply fire that isn't even burning at Steel Melting temps.

 

This is a lie. Therefore, you either lied or spread a lie. I guess the part about "several scientific papers already written and submitted for peer review" is merely dishonest, as the relevant fact is that no such paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

argument from ignorance

Oh, and do you have a better explanation for the collapse?

 

beats me, maybe fire played a small part, but I seriously doubt the total collapse of the building was due to fire. If they hadn't cleaned up ground zero so fast, maybe they would have a better, more accurate answer instead of "O Fire Made this Steel Building Collapse because a Airplane hit one of the top floors."

For that building to collapse, something had to go on under the building, you know... where the main support is. And I laugh at 9/11 "truthers" or whatever they are called, but I also laugh at that report they put out.

If that building was that unstable after a jetliner hit the TOP floor, it would have collapse on impact, not a few hours later. Also, it would have taken DAYS for that heat to melt every single support beam UNDER the impact zone. DAYS, Not Hours.

 

O crap, I just realized that this is for WTC-7.

Fire making that building collapse is even more laughable, that building only took minimal damage from debris. A fire making WTC-7 collapse is non-sense.

 

Dr. Steven Jones paper was submitted for peer reveiw and it was not published after review. It was his theory, google it. This happened several years ago and I am sure you can do the research and see that his peers rejected his theory so it was not published. I never once said his theory was published because I knew it wasn't. In fact the university took action against him.

I know that from my bad memory, but you are wrong and what you posted is wrong.

You are using slander to make your point.

 

Anyone seen Zeitgeist?

 

Yes...........

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/J0Qu6eyyr4c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/J0Qu6eyyr4c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

conspiracy theorist will never give in, no matter how strong of a case (or how weak theirs is) is given. Chalk it up to ignorance, or simple stubborness

 

You're still lying. Did you forget that you said, "That one theory was well researched and the only response to it has been name calling and censor?"

This is demonstrably false. You even knew it was false, as you admit that you knew that the Jones paper was rejected in peer review! Yet you still attempt to pass it off as a viable theory and even make up the ridiculous lie that it hasn't been refuted!

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims

I posted that link earlier in the thread. I'm sure you didn't read it, though, as it does not support your paranoid delusions.

 

In your own words: what is your alternative theory for the collapse of WTC7, and what evidence do you have to support said theory?

 

If you work for Homeland Security my apologies.

here is a quote from the Salt Lake City newspaper- "Sixteen months ago, Brigham Young University and Steven Jones parted ways, but he said this week he isn't bitter about the academic divorce.
He certainly hasn't curtailed his volatile research on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

(Yes, three towers fell, not just two. If you didn't know that, Jones is particularly interested in reaching you with his message that some other group, in addition to al-Qaida, likely contributed to the collapses.)

In fact, Jones is the lead author of a paper on the collapses published April 18 in a civil engineering journal. (bolding mine)

The journal article does not list his past tie to BYU, and that's a big Mission Accomplished for university leaders, who felt they acted to protect BYU's reputation when they worked out a retirement package with Jones and he left at the end of 2006.

But Jones is sharing a cramped BYU office with some professors. He also does research in a BYU lab as an outside user with a student who works with him.

Most importantly, he is preparing several more papers that, if they pass peer review and are published, will give him the peace of mind that his case reached the public." link

Most major news outlets covered this adnauseum-
9/ 11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving
2006-08-06, ABC News/Associated Press
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2279963

Kevin Barrett believes the U.S. government might have destroyed the World Trade Center. Steven Jones is researching what he calls evidence that the twin towers were brought down by explosives detonated inside them, not by hijacked airliners. These men aren't uneducated junk scientists: Barrett will teach a class on Islam at the University of Wisconsin this fall. Jones is a tenured physicist at Brigham Young University. The movement claims to be drawing fresh energy and credibility from a recently formed group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Publicity over Barrett's case has helped boost membership to about 75 academics. Some are well educated, with degrees from elite universities such as Princeton and Stanford and jobs at schools including Rice, Indiana and the University of Texas. Members of the group don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries. Daniel Orr, a Princeton Ph.D. and widely published retired economics chair at the University of Illinois, said he knew instantly from watching the towers fall that they had been blown apart by explosives. David Gabbard, an East Carolina education professor, acknowledges this isn't his field, but says "I'm smart enough to know ... that fire from airplanes can't melt steel." Judy Wood, until recently an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University, has been cited by conspiracy theorists for her arguments the buildings could not have collapsed as quickly as they did unless explosives were used.


I never said Jones' theory had not been refuted, I said he faced name calling and censor. And I can post those reactions if you like.

I never said that there were no rebuttals, I have read them, and I have read the site you posted.

I never said that he proved what his hypothesis nor do I believe he is right.
I don't know what happened so why would I believe Jones?

I think I said in this thread I didnot believe it was a govt. conspiracy.

You called me a liar.

I expressed my opinion in a web forum.

You said I was spreading lies.

I don't even waste my time talking about these kind of subjects unless I am bored and I like coming to D&D when I am bored.

Not every engineer or architect in the country agrees with the official story, that has been my point and I stand by it.

That is truth my friend.

 

And just to keep the air clear, are you saying that Jones did not research his theory and you know for sure it was not 'well' researched? I have read how much research he did and to say it was not well researched is a lie.

I did not say he was right, just that there were theories well researched.
I have read other papers by other academia but Jones honestly is the most publicized I am aware of.

I still don't think it is worth all your rage to prove your points about Jones and others who don't believe in the official story surrounding 9-11.

I don't consider the official story worth investigating.

I don't trust the integrity of the govt. until they stop bending the truth themselves.

I do respect the engineers and scientists who have worked hard to debunct the 9-11 conspiracy theories. It certainly nice to know that there are answers to the accusations about govt. involvment.

But calling me a liar since you twisted what I said is uncalled for and the reason I am responding to your posts.

 

Oh, paranoia, thou hast no bounds.

What journal was it, rhester? Was it peer-reviewed? Why did you even post this after you admitted that the paper was rejected in peer-review? This straw man reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

More lies:

If "the only response" was "name calling and censor," no response could have been a rebuttal. Perhaps you forgot that you made such a strong (and absurd) claim (lie?). I doubt it, though, considering I've quoted that same line at least 4 times now.

 

Perhaps there was a miscommunication. When I called you a liar, I was referring to when you said: "[T]he only response to it has been name calling and censor."

I still disagree that the Jones paper was well researched, but that is a matter of opinion.

 

You are right about that, that isn't true. I knew when I posted that there were many rebuttals, I read them.

What I should of said was that the initial response to the papers were quotes I read in the media that amounted to name calling and the university's response was to distance themselves and that most journals wouldn't even consider his paper.

I think that would have been more accurate as far as my own opinion goes.

I was wrong to imply otherwise.

Anyway, thanks for clearing up what you meant when you called me a liar and the spreader of lies repeatedly.

 

There is a wealth of evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, for what reason is hard to say. If this is the case, well then you have a problem with everything else that happened on 9/11, which there is also a wealth of evidence for. I'd suggest that everyone review the facts from both sides, watch the movies that are out there (many on google video), read the accounts of experts because it's obvious to me that many on here haven't done this and would just rather label anything contrary as "conspiracy". Why would you believe that the government couldn't lie to you? This isn't something new.

 

So you knowingly posted something that you knew wasn't true? Usually, that sort of behavior is classified as lying.

Yep, you should have said that. Then we could have discussed the evidence you have for those claims. When you pollute a discussion with lies and deception (like when you posted, in bold, a quote that claimed that the Stephen Jones journal was published in a "civil engineering journal" when you and I both know that it is not an example of a peer-reviewed publication), it becomes difficult to discuss matters of substance. Without good faith it is impossible to have a rational debate.

You're welcome. I hope you're a little more careful and, yes, honest in the future.

 

Saying it doesn't make it true.