Professor Jones: No Nukes at the WTC

[TimmyG]

i accept the aircraft could have been drones, yes. that is totally possible.

it's just the holgram and video fakery people i'm not buying.
and i have considered it and looked into it. it's just not possible

thing is though. I think they were probably 747s. you can see the markings in some of the photos that are available.

either way. trying to prove that they were 747s or not is probably not that profitable. i'd say there other points to the official story which have more chance of revealing the truth on investigation.

[Leiff]

Surely the thing all can agree on is the need for an independent investigation into 9/11. The mechanics of the execution of 9/11 is one of the things that the investigation will need to address. Nothing can be gained by arguing over speculation.

[Veronica]

[Leiff]

Only time will tell.

[Veronica]

[scar]

veronica: Do you have anything to add to scubadivers post here?
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2789
I asked you earlier but you havent shown up yet. So far its rather unconvincing.

If "Time has already told those with eyes to see, and ears to hear." then why not share that wisdom rather than posting hitpieces against those who dont agree with you.
Allow the truth to do the talking.
Unless you cant actually prove what you say...

[Veronica]

Hi scar,

I had a 'quick skim' through the scubadiver thread ... enough (I think) to know that yes ... I can add buckets more.

I have been attempting to get someone to stop nit-picking over what 'academic context' meant (etc. etc. etc.) and answer the question I posed on the State of the Union thread, and (obliquely) on this thread when I said "If the answer is (1), then I will shut up on post no more".

(or putting the latter the other way round and answer (2) means I continue with an explanation.)

In other words, I have been trying to get someone to step up to the plate for a serious debate.

So ... thank you scar. You're elected!

Right then. I am going to treat you a someone who believes in 7X7s. I hope that is acceptable to you.

I will not in anyway demean you, deride you, or name call. (Provided that you don't do that to me). At all times your integrity (and mine) will remain fully intact.

The rules are that we DON'T GO OFF ON TANGENTS, and stick to 'point by point'. I'll ask some questions, and you provide the best, most honest, genuine, and truthful answers you can. At some point I may get you to ask me a question, which I will answer similarly.

If, at any point you feel that you would rather someone else stepped in to answer any question, then you may (at your descretion) throw it open. However any substitute guarantees the same rules of debate as above ... that they will stick to the point ... not go off on a tangent ... etc.

ALL POINTS WILL BE COVERED IN THEIR DUE TIME (provided that we all obey the rules, above)

This first question is:

Can you prove that Flights AA11 and AA77 actually existed on 9/11?
(Irrespective of whether of not AA77 hit the Pentagon or not ... we'll discuss that later)

[IronSnot]

What they don't exist because they didn't make it on to the flight database?

Gerard Holmgren doesn't make it into the Sydney Whitepages either.

I guess we both live in hope.

[ian neal]

Dear V

Well obviously I wouldn't want to be sold down the river or to close off discussion.

But the term shill to me implies a degree of deliberate deception. As I acknowledge I haven't followed this angle in any detail but it strikes me that even if you are correct on 'no 7x7s' unless it can be shown that Prof Jones is intentionally misleading us (as opposed to having a disagreement over interpretation of the evidence) the term shill is best avoided

Now back to the evidence

[scar]

[Graham]

Veronica... a suggestion. As you are a good debater, can you put together a thread with all the "no plane" evidence etc. I'm still not sure about the whole theory, as different supporters claim different things. I have still heard no concise explanation.

For example, I think it's perfectly possible, that a military plane was used, and, in at least the close up shot from the newsfeeds, things like colours of the plane may have changed.

I too see all "weird" goings on with some of the footage flowing about, but then I have numerous photo shots of the plane going in, including a big 15mb file which I can't host anywhere cause it's too big. (Anyone help on that?).

[Veronica]

Hi Graham,

Are you Graham the Scholar?

OK in answer to your question ... embedded in all the stuff above you will see an e-mail from Michael Morrissey (who you will recognise, if you are Graham the Scholar). He says he is flying to the US (from Germany, as you will know) and is putting together the 'definitive' no-planes version in conjunction with Rick (who you will also know).

There is little point in me duplicating this work. So I suggest that we wait until they have done what they intend to do, on that one.

On the other hand I'm prepared to pre-empt that issue by going through it on a one-on-one with someone here.

If you aren't Graham the Scholar, then you should still be able to figure out the situation from what I say above.

I can host a 15MEGAbyte file without much problem. (I could host a 15GIGAByte file, but the upload time would blow my broadband)

On the other hand, while I'd be happy to host it for you, I'm not sure that such a file is necessary in order to explain 'No 7X7s'. Video frame collections (which focus on specifics) do the job.

[IronSnot]

[Dog]

Or at least ask the non-pilot if his projector lens is clean. Lord only knows where he could end up....

[Graham]

[scar]

[Veronica]

[scar]

Many have asked you to go through it step by step or to produce your evidence. Add to scubadivers thread to convince people, if thats your goal. I thought it was.

You dont need to assign someone as your opponent to do this. If someone wants to have a crack then they can do. Why try and blame me for you not producing the evidence, pretty odd.

Im still wondering if you will provide any proof Jones is cointelpro.


edit: I see sinclair has provided information there now...cool.

[Veronica]

[scar]

Fine, your whole attitude is offensive.
I already said what i thought of your link to Jones being cointelpro- pathetic.
All i did was suggest you post in scubadivers thread (3 times) here and finally i get a response. A rude response.
You are quite right none of this is YOUR evidence so why act like you do with it? You think you're superior to everyone else based on nothing. You patronise people you dont know (spynee) telling them what they should be doing so less of the hypocrisy eh?

I thought we were all on a truthseeking mission here not a ego-maniacs division course. If you had provided links of interest i would have checked them out but its ok. Ive seen lots of it already i think and you obviously have nothing but spite to offer.
I shant reply to your posts again.
good luck on your missions...

edit: this made me LOL btw:

[Veronica]

[alwun]

Hi Veronica, Excuse me for butting in on your impassioned debate -
a full week ago you said (on your 'State of the Union' thread) that you would back up your bold assertion that the Luton image was not doctored. You stated that your source was 'the Web Fairy' and that the 'Fairy', "who has been right about everything else", would provide the evidence required. The face of the figure on the left has managed to grow a pink rectangle where his nose should be. On examination at pixel level, it certainly looks as if it results from deliberate manipulation. The colour appears nowhere else within that strangely bluish tinted image. You are the first person on any forum I've visited who has baldly state that the image is not doctored. It pains me to say, but I have become increasingly suspicious of your motives , a sensation exacerbated by your somewhat unwarrantedly aggressive tone of your replies to posters here.
over and out..

[Veronica]

alwun,

You are right ... I did promise that ... thanks for reminding me.

I'll get on to that straight away.

[andrewwatson]

What an appalling thread. If there are shills and cointelpro agents working within our movement, and trying to destroy it from within, let them look no further than this thread for inspiration.

[Veronica]

Alwun,

I have posted off a request. We will have to wait for a reply. (Or you could e-mail Rosalee yourself at webfairy@thewebfairy.com).

With regard to the matter of ‘aggression’ and/or ‘politeness’, you will find (on close inspection of precisely WHAT has been said), that I, Rosalee, Gerard, Nico and Rick are polite and non-aggressive with those who are polite and non-aggressive to US.

The group is not very polite to Steven Jones … not, in point of fact (necessarily) because we abhor liars, but because we don’t think he has the right to plagiarise and lie his way in the world. And, furthermore, we believe he is poisoning the waters … for the simple reason that he will not discuss the pulverisation of the concrete … which is a proven fact (as any New Yorker will tell you). There is NO WAY that thermate can possibly account for that, and – by avoiding the issue – he is creating a ‘controlled demolitions hypothesis’ that can be torn to shreds by another 9/11 Omission.

I think you will find (as I said, on CLOSE and CAREFUL inspection) that

(a) Most of the ‘aggression’ has come from Gerard & Co, and is directed at Steven Jones … and not anyone here. I have simply been the messenger and posted it unedited (except for white space tidying)

(b) Such aggression that has come from me, has been a direct result of aggression TOWARDS me in the first place. I have even attempted to ignore some of it, initially. However there comes a point that, if someone obviously wants to pick a fight, then a fight they will get.

It is true that I have posted (what seems to be … when first read) ‘outlandish’ claims. That has not been done on purpose. It has been done to INFORM. I think this forum has the right to know what is going on. And it is as simple as that. If you think I have ‘other’ motives then … you simply don’t know me, but that won’t stop anyone looking for them. However, you may notice that I don’t go around accusing anyone other than Jones and Griffin of ‘other motives’ (for example Jane, and your own ‘oblique’ accusation). You can look for ‘other motives’ from now until the end of time. I don’t have any. But, if you still want to look for them, I can’t stop you … and have no real intention of trying..

If for example, Rosalee lets me down, and doesn’t back up her Luton Still claim, then I will be the first to apologise, I can assure you.

[Veronica]

Based on the work of Sir Isaac Newton the world has known that (this might be a bit difficult with the in-built restrictions of format) if a ball bearing were dropped from the top of WTC1 (which was 1,368 feet high), then its Potential Energy would be equal to mass x height x acceleration due to gravity.

The acceleration due to gravity is constant, and equal to 32 feet per second per second.

By the time that ball bearing reached the ground, all of the Potential Energy would have been converted into Kinetic Energy, and this is equal to ½ x mass x the square of the velocity (at the time of meeting the ground)

Therefore it is possible to equate the two:

Mass x height (1368) x acceleration (32) = ½ x Mass x terminal velocity squared.

Since the mass appears on both sides of the equation, and it will be exactly the same, it can be cancelled out, leaving

1368 x 32 = ½ terminal velocity squared.

(This is the reason why it doesn't matter how heavy or light something is … it reaches the ground in at the same speed, and in the same time. It could be a ball bearing … it could be a brick … it could be an aircraft. Or, of course, a building)

However all of this only applies in a vacuum.

Nevertheless (ignoring air for a moment), and picking up the thread … multiply both side by 2, gives

2 x 1368 x 32 = terminal velocity squared,. or

87552 = terminal velocity squared, or

square root of 87552 = terminal velocity on impact with the ground. Which means (approximately)

296 feet per second = terminal velocity

The effect of gravity is uniform … the acceleration is constant and consistent. Consequently it is possible to say that, to reach this terminal velocity would take exactly the same time as a ball bearing, moving parallel to the ground for 1,368 feet, at constant velocity exactly half of this terminal velocity, i.e. 148 feet per second.

And velocity = distance divided by time, or putting this another way

Time = distance divided by velocity, which when substituting, gives

Time = 1368 divided by 148 = 9.24 seconds.

Specifically FREE-FALL Time IN A VACUUM = 9.24 seconds … which is therefore the absolute MINIMUM time it would have taken for the top of WTC1 or WTC2 to reach the ground.

Now, adding in a bit of air resistance, this approximate calculation would rise to somewhere between 10 and 12 seconds. As FREE-FALL time.

(Kenneth A Cutler has done a much more thorough job than this for WTC7 at http://worldtradecentertruth.com/W7Kuttler.pdf)

That calculation is perfectly standard and known to every mathematician, physicist, astronomer, engineer (etc.) world wide.

What happened in 2002 was that Rosalee noticed that the Towers fell at approximately 11 seconds (give or take) and, in conjunction with others, realised that the Law of Gravity (of which that calculation is the simplest application) explained the Controlled Demolitions of the Towers. Because only a Controlled Demolition would account for the lack of resistance (other than air) to result in a very close approximation to Free-Fall time.

I will repeat, just in case you missed it. (1) Rosalee and (2) 2002.

Now, along comes Professor Jones, in 2005 (I repeat … about 3 ½ years later) and starts to prove the use of thermate as 'the answer to Controlled Demolition'.

THE ANSWER TO CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IS THE LAW OF GRAVITY. (See calculation, above). THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE FREE-FALL TIME BEING SO CLOSE TO CALCULATION.

If Professor Jones wanted to SERIOUSLY investigate something, then he would choose the area for which there is no (known) answer: THE PULVERISATION OF THE CONCRETE INTO FINE DUST (50 microns in diameter).

Instead of this he drags out his thermate through 'possible investigation' through 'plausible hypothesis' to 'proven by samples' ADDING NOTHING AT ALL TO THE DEBATE BECAUSE THE LAW OF GRAVITY, and calculations known to every engineer, had already, absolutely, proved.

(It wouldn't be quite so bad if it weren't for the fact that everyone, who saw the collapses on TV, felt it was a Controlled Demolition in their guts, in any case). The fact that it can be totally supported by mathematical calculation wraps up the case. Case solved)

So what has been Prof. Jones' contribution to the solving of the case?

Well, here is his own words, since he has been so kind as to partially answer a few of the questions put to him recently:

"In brief, my paper provides numerous references to past work (building on past work as is common in science and engineering) -- and as regards original contributions, I would cite in particular:

1. First analysis of solidified slag recovered from WTC, using X-ray fluorescence, TEM and electron-microprobe methods. (I also worked to obtain the samples!)

2. Experiments at BYU with molten aluminum and with thermite and thermate, with results of those experiments as correlated to WTC observations delineated in two scholarly papers.

3. First peer-reviewed paper giving a detailed critique of the FEMA and NIST reports as regards the WTC collapses.

4. Initiation of the peer-reviewed Journal of 9/11 Studies (Journalof911Studies.com), and co-editor of that Journal. Recruited
the Editorial Board.

Sincerely,

Steven Jones"

Well, possibly you find that impressive? Well I 'built on past work common in science and engineering' when I performed the calculation above. I built on the work of Sir Isaac Newton. The rest of what Prof. Jones claims, adds nothing to the Law of Gravity, and calculations that can be based on it.

The noticeable ABSENCE of any work, is in the matter of the concrete dust (highly toxic, of course … but that's another matter).

The problem with the concrete dust, is that 'thermate; does not answer it. And the additional problem is that Prof. Jones' research and working history, brought him into contact with a number of 'technologies' that WOULD explain the pulverised concrete.

In summary, it has taken Prof. Jones 3 ½ years to prove the Law of Gravity. Meanwhile the 'extra ingredient' on which he could have started work years ago, continues to CONSISTENTLY fall 'under his RADAR' (for some reason).

And, furthermore, it consistently falls under the RADAR of David Ray Griffin.

Whether or not you agree with me (and it seems you don't) I nevertheless feel I have the right to know what is wrong with their RADAR. I am just a little more than suspicious of it.

[James O'Neill]

I am afraid that Veronica is talking nonsense when she says, inter alia, that Steven Jones refuses to discuss pulverisation of the concrete in the WTC towers and that he is somehow misleading us with his pushing of controlled demolition.
If she, (and anyone else who is interested) goes to Professor Jones' powerpoint presentation at the July 2006 LA conference (available on the scholars for 911 truth website) there are numerous references to the dust clouds, including in particular on page 148 an explicit reference to the fact that pulverisation was the result of controlled demolition.
Pulverisation of concrete requires a much greater input of energy than can be explained by the collapse of the towers themselves. Even a non-physicist such as myself can grasp that basic concept. The only explanation of the pulverisation consistent with the physics of the operation is explosives.
That argument is also set out in a relatively uncomplicated way in Frank Legge's paper in the Journal of 911 Studies, which is also edited by Steven Jones.
What Professor Jones has done, and what is in my opinion absolutely invaluable, is to show that the mechanism of demolition was thermate. That evidence is clearly devastating for any of supporters of the official conspiracy theory. It helps explain many of the attacks being mounted on him.
If it comes to a choice between investigators like Steven Jones, Judy Woods, Frank Legge et al and the distractionists like Veronica it really is no contest.

[andrewwatson]

I will go one stage further and state bluntly my view that anyone who has suspicions of David Ray Griffin is themselves highly 'suspicious', and probably best avoided.

[IronSnot]