Discussion Thread: An Open Challenge to Prof. Steven Jones

[outsider]

By their posts shalt thou know them. It's enlightening to see one of the first heroes of our movement challenged on our forum, instead of Bushco or Bliar. Ignore it; don't give it the benefit of mounting 'viewer' numbers. Steven Jones has my vote any day.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Newspeak International]

I am afraid this latest attempt to spread a dishonest campaign against
Jones is all too transparrent,and so on that light I too back the proposal for lack of confidence in Andrew Johnson.

Of course I understand where you are coming from,(as you have stated previously)but this "Thermite/thermate versus controlled demolition" nonsense is a none starter.

Shame you just don't see it AJ,unless you actually do have evidence you are hiding from us all,in which case just spit it out.

The other thread should be removed as it's a frig gin joke.

[paul wright]

I must admit to being a bit of a beamer myself. From day 1 I formed the impression, merely from watching those collapses, that Tesla style technology was involved and it wasn't until Painful Deceptions came out I could agree that explosives were also involved, anf I've never seen fit to reject Prof Jones's thermite involvement- he probably knows better than me on that subject
I don't think that one theory necessarily precludes another and I don't see why they can't operate in concert. I fully accept the diificulty with the time required to wire up the building for explosive demolition alone, yet I've no doubt the conventional explosives involved for whatever reasons

What bothers me is the preposterous highmindedness of this Challenge
If the y want an online serious uninterrupted debate on this issue, then that's fine, but why on earth present it as an online aggressive challenge. Why not try and set it up before hand as a proper debate and then start it on line if you achieve the other participants agreement
Putting myself in Stephen Jones's shoes for a moment if 'challenged' in this manner I know what I'd think-
F**k the f**********k off
Which is his apparent response at this time

[marky 54]

im all up for debating evidence no matter how unbelievable it may sound.
ive seen a few threads on beam weapons and i have seen no proof they even exsist.

so can anyone prove they exsist? i dont know about anybody else but i think that proof is kinda the most important.

you need to prove they exsist, that they can achieve what happened on 9/11 and what size it would need to be before attacking s.jones.

i find it strange that people need to disprove s.jones theory rather than prove their theory of beam weapons to be true in the first place. theres nothing wrong with having a theory but why play it of against s.jones?

is this an aggresive attempt to discredit the truth and have us believe a theory that as far as i can see has not been proven to throw us all back into confusion of the events of 9/11.

i just dont get why s.jones must be your focus of beam weapons when so far you fail to convince anyone here. its like discrediting s.jones theory is more important than proving your own to people. and that leads people to wonder why and who is really putting this theory forward so aggresively.

infiltrated from within is my only conclusion unless the basic proof that beam weapons was even possible can be shown. divide and conquer seems to be the case, NPT didnt work so now its something else.

eyewitnesses report multiple flashes and explosions, most use this term, pop, pop, pop, pop. flashes can be seen in the footage along with numerous squibs suggesting many events taking place inside the towers.

beam weapon sounds more like a single event "one blast" or am i wrong?
if im not then it dosnt fit all evidence like CD. but im willing to listen to arguements against i just dont get why s.jones has to be bullied into withdrawing his statements or being silenced proves beam weapons theory to be true.

only when you can prove to others beam weapons are true should such a move be made. i cannot help being suspious that this is a infiltrated disinfo attempt that has dragged in a few truthers who are fooled by it.
you can tell people anything and a certain amount will believe it, they know this and are using it as an attack against truth IMO unless someone can prove to me otherwise.

[ian neal]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people who are not specialists and/or who do not have a strong schooling in science, engineering or for that matter video manipulation technologies have no problem in expressing vehement views on the technical aspects of 9/11 even to the extent that they will fall out with those that disagree with them.

Now for your information I am an engineer of sorts. I have a masters in water engineering and several years practical experience. This means I have a strong grounding in science and certain aspects of engineering. And I have studied the WTC collapses in quite a lot of detail. Does this make me a structural engineer, a demolition engineer or a fire engineer able to comment as an expert? No.

So as a general rule I do not express opinions publicly on the technical aspects of 9/11 including such hypotheses that missiles hit the pentagon or that the TV imagery is faked. I believe the official investigations and explanations for the tower collapses, the pentagon damage and crash site of Flight 93 to be riddled with errors, inconsistencies and are frankly bs and in trying to convince people of the need to reopen 9/11 I of course point to the questions raised by researchers/campaigners.

In introducing 9/11 to people my advice is start with Press for Truth and then move onto the more controversial areas (as I explain above.) This is campaigning and this is where we should focus IMO

As we move from stuff we absolutely know and can prove into the on-going debate between 9/11 researchers we find all the heat and acrimony between campaigners. And yet this is so unnecessary. There is no way to prevent discussion and hypotheses on what really happened amongst researchers. It's been going on since day one. If the moderators sought to censor discussion of controversial topics it would not go away and another schism would emerge where 'we' would be accused of 'gate-keeping' by those whose views are censored. What we as a community of campaigners need to recognise is that on going research and debate should be encouraged but it should not dominate the public face of 9/11 truth.

Whilst it is not always clear where the divide between this public face of campaigning finishes and where on going research and debate between 9/11 campaigners starts, a clear separation between internal debate/research and campaigning which presents the strongest and most credible case for 9/11 truth needs to take shape without silly accusations of shill, truthling and so forth flying about from either side.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Ian - you are a good egg.

The best way I can see unity for this campaign is to organise an event where we all can meet.

Is the meeting in Blackpool such an event?

[paul wright]

Deepest utter respect to you Ian
I remember you searching for souls on U75 years ago
But this is just nonsense
Even though I'm on the side, more or less, of the 'Challengers'

[marky 54]

it seems the only way beam weapons can even be considered is if you can prove s.jones wrong. where the hell is the science or proof in that?
take out the guy who makes sense so people will listen to our theory seems to be the move here, rather than prove to people beam weapons is true then put that to s.jones(just summing up my point above i do rant a bit).

[MiniMauve]

[ian neal]

[Pete J]

I've been a bit perplexed about why S. E. Jones causes the 'no-planers' so much apparent distress. I've never actually seen him 'dismiss' the beam-weapon theory in the way that they dismiss him with personality attacks such as calling him a 'fraud'. What I saw him say publicly recently is that he always has an open mind with regard to theories but would like to see more 'evidence' (for the beam weapon theory).

Surely the demolition theory and the 'beam-weapon'/no planes theory are all complimentary areas of research in that they are all alternatives to the official one.

Why is there a need for this 'I challenge thee to a duel' nonsense which appears to be completely infantile on the face of it ? The poster 'Veronica' could have approached this whole matter in a much more constructive way.

Even if S. E. Jones were ultimately to turn out to be misguided, what is the basis for calling him a 'fraud' ? Please remember that it was this guy, more than anyone alse in my opinion, who gave the movement a massive credibility boost.

Can I also remind folks that Jones's more fundamental point was NOT that thermite/controlled demolition brought the towers down. It was that the scientific method demands that multiple hypothises be tested against the data to find the one that best fits. He has chosen to research the thermate one but I'm not aware that he's actually 'dismissed' any others. The guy is allowed to be sceptical without actually being a 'disinfo' agent. He's got a job to de researching AN alternative theory and he's doing it.

Finally, I agree with a previous poster that if Andrew knows something that the rest of us don't he should just 'spit it out' instead of alluding to important background information so indirectly.

[Snowygrouch]

"In summary, we have discovered substantial evidence supporting the idea that thermites were used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job. We can next estimate the amount of explosives needed by comparing with a known controlled demolition: the explosive demolition of the Landmark Tower.

“The explosive charges used to bring down the Landmark Tower [380 ft tall, 30 stories] weighed only 364 pounds [165 kilograms], consisting of 198 pounds of 60-percent nitroglycerine-based gel in 1-1/4 inch sticks, and 166 pounds of RDX (a C-4 derivative)." http://www.acppubs.com/article/CA6325450.html

Scaling to the 110-story WTC Towers, roughly 1300 pounds [590 kg] of explosives per Tower would suffice. Scaling to the size of WTC 7, 570 pounds [260 kg] would be indicated. The videos referenced above show WTC 7 falling top-down, in conventional controlled demolition fashion. On the other hand, the Towers were evidently demolished from the top downward, which although unusual is certainly possible using explosives. Indeed, for very tall towers such as these, top-down demolition seems be the best approach, to avoid toppling over of the tower onto surrounding buildings.

Explosives such as RDX, or HMX, or superthermites, when pre-positioned by a small team of operatives, would suffice to cut the supports at key points such that these tall buildings would completely collapse with little damage to surrounding buildings."

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse
Prof Steven Jones
Page 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

1: Why did steven ignore everything except thermite?

He didnt and never has; if you READ the paper he clearly states that a combination of at least TWO different explosives must have been used.

2: What is you proof of concept for thermite?

Errr....that it cuts steel very fast, produces moulten iron as a by product (the pools in the basement) and can be used with Sulfur as an accellerant (the steel with large quantity of Sulfur residue).

3: How many times has the TTH been used to drop a building (of any size) prior to 9/11, and since?

No idea but its used reguarly to dismember oil rigs. (large STEEL structures wieghing tens of thousands of tons)

4: How does thermite explain the siesmics?

It doesnt and his paper says conventional high explosives WERE USED; so the siesmics were probably caused by those!

5: How does thermite explain the pulversization?

AGAIN it doesnt; if you READ the paper he said (read it yourself above) high explosives WERE USED, so THEY probably caused the pulverization. Yo would know that if you had actually READ the paper you are so indignant about.

6: How does it explain toasted cars?

What (in the real world) do burned out cars have to do with a civil engineering disaster?
------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt jones will turn up to answer such questions; academics take a very dim view of people who ridicule their work without even READING it!!

Your bahaviour is much like turnng up for an exam having done NO work and then being surprised you cant do any of the questions...

"TTH could be a very large trap for 9/11 Truth, could it not?"

Ha! HA ha! ......WHAT? Yes I`m SURE that saying explosives brought down the WTC is a trap set by the government!!!!

He he he!!!

*deep sigh of dispair*

Can we all go HOME now?

C.

[graphicequaliser]

Thermate is exactly how they cut the steel beams. Just watch TerrorStorm, and you can clearly see sporadic bursts of molten steel pouring out of the tower shortly before it collapses.

Whatever the outcome of all this debate, it should be absolutely, transparently clear that governments throughout the history of the world have always lied to their electorates for the benefit of financial gain, at the cost of the electorates' lives. It is surely a wonder that the electorates still bother voting for these nasty pieces of work, and yet we humans still do it. We have got to stop. If we do not, we will all surely die, not least because, while we elect known Satanists into power, we are slapping God in the face.

As I keep saying, stop all voting in all democracies all around the world NOW!!!

[Thermate]

[brian]

"What are the Goals in the 9/11 Truth Community?" (January 9, 2007)

Steven Jones

http://journalof911studies.com/letters/FocusOnGoals.pdf

[spiv]

Thanks for that link Brian, I am very glad to see some people with some common sense still posting on this forum.

That letter seems very clear, and one which I completely agree with. I stated yesterday that Andrew & Veronica should hang their heads in shame regarding this ludicrous "challenge" (I actually would now add to this the other members who have agreed and assisted with this nonsense).

The 9/11 Truth movement around the world has made great strides over the past twelve months, many many people are becoming aware of the fiction of the 9/11 commission's report. This "challenge" will not help matters, and I, for one, call upon the organisers of this site to close it down, delete it immediately (and also this thread) and then we all stand together as one. We have proved the falsehood of the official "investigation", and we should now turn our united attentions to working together in getting a new independent, unbiased and thorough 9/11 inquiry set up. It is this inquiry which can look at beam weapons, no planes, explosives and consider all the evidence, it is not up to Veronica, Andrew, Wood, Feiltzer or any of the other clowns who are currently destroying the good work done so far..

This nonsense of Veronica's will just serve to set back the cause, and make laughing stocks of us all.

[andyb]

Is there any reason this got moved to a seperate section to the thread it is discussing. I, for one, would not want Stephen Jones thinking that we all support this 'debate'. Also, I keep hearing Veronica saying that NIST have disproved Stephen Jones, can she please provide us with proof of this? You might find if proof is shown people may take you seriously.

[Lynne]

oh my

I have just sat and read all this and i used to think people were maybe being a bit over the top when they said this place was rife with egos, but it so is. Makes me see why i am not a group person. You are behaving like the establishment with your blatent need to know mantra. Information should be open to all, debate open to all, you extremly patronise when you say anything different. As for a public face and then your own private face.. yes that is really clever for a TRUTH campaign ( and the capitlisation is relevant as i am ehphasisng the Irony) You will only result in alianting people. I was at the London event and i obsereved the group , without being part of the group and soon your ego heads will pop as the masses will get fed up of it and seek another platform. You serioulsy need to see that you are not an authority on 9/11 but an information point and a base for campaigners to get together. Your elitist behaviour gives me no confidence.

[brian]

ian neal posted this below on the other thread -

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject:

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

As discussed in the emails to establish this particular thread, the moderators are merely providing a space to allow for a respectful exchange of views between Veronica (who I understand speaks with Jim Fetzer's blessing on this forum) and Steven Jones (or any representative he may choose to nominate) should both parties wish to participate.

As such the only people to post this thread should be Veronica and Steven Jones or their nominated representatives. The moderators and all other posters should not post on this thread. Please respect this.

Thanks
-------

ian, can I ask then why Veronica is allowed to post such disrespectful drivel?

Also, why are the moderators allowing this non debate, this continuous assertion of falsehoods?

What is there to debate?

I assume you are aware that Jones has never at any time said TTH was the only explanation so why allow this nonsense?

What we have is a nonsense and falsehood being dressed up as having relevance so it is time those allowing this divisive and detrimental nonsense to explain why they are allowing it. That is addressed to all those who have participated in it or are allowing it to continue.

Jones has stated in the link above he has no intention of participating in this so Veronica's extremely disrespectul and ignorant posts have no good reason to remain. There was no good reason from the outset unless to discredit Jones and allowing them to remain will serve only that purpose seeing no dissenters are allowed to post on the thread.

This seems so simple I am at a loss as to how it can be defended but am eager to see.

[scar]

[ian neal]

[Uma]

[ian neal]

[Fallious]

Why all this BS about uniting behind theories? The only theory any person in this movement need subscribe too is that 9/11 was not perpetrated by a bunch of terrororiirirrsts.

We never had this nonsense back when In Plane Site was blowing on about pods. We didn't even have this when the CD theory was forming (though I've heard NPT's claim there was such division). Why do Woods and Uncle Fetzer now have such a blind desire to 'prove the other guy wrong'? Does the presence of dynamite and thermate somehow prevent their wacko bean weapon from functioning?

Does anyone here REALLY need reminding to think extra critically about those who are actively trying to destroy the theory which produced so much support?

Just a reminder, bean weapons that destroy buildings.. They don't exist kthx.

[scar]

[John White]

Well all I have to say on this challenge issue is its amazing what can happen when I spend a couple of days away from the net to pursue my new love affair

There's a lot of antagonism between CD and NPT advocates, human nature really, we all like comfort zones to cling to, but I can't see any real harm in it: the chips will fall as they may and everyone will make there own minds up "based on the evidence", as they always do: and I dont expect a lot of minds to change their position as a result

If nothing else, its created some drama and controversy, and thats normally what keeps forum's alive: a sense of dynamic

[paul wright]

[Lynne]

[ian neal]

This from a recent email that I sent to the '2 camps' at ST911