Saturday, March 24, 2007

Steven Jones to Reveal New 9/11 "Inside Job" Theory

(BNN – March 24, 2007 – Évian-les-Bains, FRANCE.) BNN French correspondent Alain Trenteseaux has learned that Steven Jones will reveal a new theory about the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers on Sept. 11, 2001 on Sunday, March 25, the last day of the 73rd Annual Conference of the Société de Climatologie Européen.

Jones's appearance at this prestigious conference has sparked controversy among participants. Joachim Wiedemann of Munich, Germany protested that Jones "...has no credentials as a climatologist. I have initiated a formal protest and have already 23 members to sign a petition demanding Jones be not allowed to address this conference."

Other participants dismiss the controversy. "Just because he is not an expert in climatology does not mean he does not have valid data," exclaimed Sylvie Bois from Reims, France. "Everyone's opinion should be respected."

BNN will continue to provide extensive coverage. A full report will be published early next week.

See: BNN News Alert - Wednesday, March 21, 2007


Anonymous said...

You aren't too bright are you?

Anonymous said...
From the Vermont Guardian.

Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice

Posted March 1, 2007

Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.

I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse.”

The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word “concrete,” the latter documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.

Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.

The prevailing theory

The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each building’s columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).

However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over the missing columns.

After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”

The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.

Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level.

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.

The politically unthinkable theory

Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.

The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let’s consider this building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.

Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.

The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated.

Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let’s start by contacting our congressional delegation.

William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses

Original source:

For more info watch this brief 13 minute video entitled "WTC 7 - The Smoking Gun of 9/11"


911_truthiness said...

""However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over the missing columns.""

No, what the concrete does do in the case of fire is provide a very good insulator to protect the steel from heat. So at 800 degrees the steel lost 50% of its strength.

Your idea that the towers should have melted as the steel weakened, well.. thats just the vision of a child with a toy building but is not real world. The physics of structure this massive would dictate a collapse scenario like you saw on 911 and not "help I am melting" idiocy.

"The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed."

I am sorry but you are wrong on that one and I take it you never actually watched a video and timed it!! Go ahead find any video that shows the entire collapse and time it... you will find it takes 16 to 18 seconds,

There is another easily verifiable observation that proves the free fall lie as untrue.

If the towers fell at free fall speed then why do you see debris walling at speeds FASTER! then free? After all this stuff does reach the ground before the collapse has completed, ergo, by your reasoning it must fall at faster then free fall!!! Were rockets placed on some of the debris to launch it at the ground?

Want the answer? well go back to the video and count! Some debris hits the ground in about 11 or 12 seconds, the towers themselves, 16 to 18 and maybe more but the dust cloud obscures any further observation.

But you won't look, it would blow you entire agenda out of the water.

See what you do is copy and paste, and parrot bullshit from truther sites but you won't or can't think on you own. You kid yourself that this copy/paste truth campaign takes the place of real intelligent observation.

Yves Guerain said...

Yes, anonymous is not very smart which we know is true of every 9/11 Truthie. How many times to these truthies have to watch this video before they understand it?

Repeat after me, 911 truthies:

1. The towers did not fall at free fall speed.

2. The debris falling from the towers fell faster than the towers collapsed.

Do you understand reality now, 9/11 truthies?

psikeyhackr said...

Let’s just face a few simple facts.

Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.

After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!

Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.

Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?

That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.

The distributions of steel and concrete are going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

How much does one complete floor assembly weigh?

You know those square donut floor slabs? They were 205 ft square with a rectangular hole for the core. There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. There has been talk about those things pancaking on each other for years.

But has anyone ever said what the whole thing weighed? Why haven't we seen that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? The concrete alone is easy to compute, about 601 tons. But the concrete could not be separated from the entire assembly, the upper knuckles of the trusses were embedded into the concrete. So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven't the EXPERTS been mentioning that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So why hasn't Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? How much computing power do they have now, compared to the early 1960s when the buildings were designed? I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity hasn't changed since the 1960s. They should be able to come up with some reasonable numbers.