Discussion Thread: An Open Challenge to Prof. Steven Jones

[rodin]

Rather than 'unite behind a theory' (a devastatingly scary suggestion IMO) the way to go is to draw up a VERY short list that NO honest researcher can deny. This list would NOT include thermite in it, as this is not absolutely proven, just very likely (as part of the demolition process).

I would suggest that all 'analysis' by experts of whatever persuasion should never be taken as gospel. We do not know how deep the disinformation industry goes, though given what's at stake here 'bloody' would seem too cautious an adjective.

A short list of incontrovertible evidence, not dependent on human interpretation, or amenable to distortion, or depending on circumstantial evidence no matter how strong. (The latter can be used to present the case for investigation, but to get a conviction here we will need proof of a calibre seldom available to court of law - where judgements are weighed on balance of proof. Here the entire system is going to be against us)

1) Collapses at free-fall speed necessitate controlled demolition therefore that must be what happened

2) Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel, yet that is what happened

Care to add/delete from the above list?

One to take our governments to court over and not have the jury baffled by 'experts'?

[outsider]

[Fallious]

[outsider]

[CB_Brooklyn]

The link in the first post in this thread is to a ridiculous article that only an idiot would fall for. It is so easily debunkable; the only reason I haven't debunked it myself is because it would be so embarrassing!

But I am writing an article detailing Steven Jones deceitful research. Those who still trust that guy really have no idea what's going on. As Paul Craig Roberts said "..many Americans are scientifically ignorant and emotionally weak." And that seems to go for the Truth movement as well. First of all, the movement is controlled by the 9/11 perps and its members has been brainwashed into thinking Exotic Weaponry and TV-Fakery just can't be real no matter what. And second, many people just don't have the brains to think scientifically. And yet they still trust Jones despite him not explaining the violation of Newton's Laws of Motion in the obviously CGIed South Tower strike.

Another interesting observation: those who can't think scientifically tend to be the ones who promote censorship. Is this by design?

[Patrick Brown]

Yawn

[CB_Brooklyn]

[wickywoowoo]

[CB_Brooklyn]

[wickywoowoo]

[CB_Brooklyn]

[Thermate]

[thought criminal]

[thought criminal]

[Fallious]

[marky 54]

[CB_Brooklyn]

[Snowygrouch]

Mathematics are not needed!!!!!!!



But Newtons laws of motion ARE!!!!!!

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

Thats possibly the most absurd thing I have ever heard anyone say....EVER.

I THINK you will find that many of newtons laws of motion were published in a book called the PRINCIPIA; a large volume of text containing NOTHING but.....wait for it.......MATHEMATICS!!

Do you think Newton just made them up for a laugh one day.....they are all mathematical derivations as are all the formulae I used to show the impact exceeded the ultimate tensile strength of the beams by a factor of 300%.

But whatever....."this video I found on you-tube says otherwise" so........

Blah blah blah

Care for a hat to eat??

Ok to satisfy your Newton agenda, Newton said "every applied force has an equal and opposite REACTION". This applies when something moving hits something static and they both stop.

So the force of the plane hitting had to be absorbed by the building PUSHING back. If you find the force, find the strength of steel and its cross section from NIST report, find the number of beams cut you can very easily calculate if the outer columns COULD apply an equal and opposite reaction.

Newtons law, the raw data and a caculator says.....................NO.

And as for the concrete, you will find it was a layer 4 inches thick of lightweight concrete. So thin the plane didnt have to go through it, the thin layer probably cut the fuselage in half lengthways.

Like it or lump it my friend. Them's the facts......them's the facts.

[paul wright]

It's always http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion isnt it

[alwun]

Hi CB_Brooklyn,

you state above that
"The outer perimeter columns were structural steel. Between each floor was a nice slab of steel-reinforced concrete."

I suggested on another thread that steel reinforced concrete formed part of the WTCs structure and was immediately chastised for my ignorance. I wonder if you can reassure me that rebar was in place in the floor slabs, perhaps a link to an authoritative source. I would very much appreciate the help.

cheers Al..

[CB_Brooklyn]

[CB_Brooklyn]

[alwun]

Hi CB_,

ok thanks. So will I. I've been told in no uncertain terms that there was none. The critical party in this case went on to propose a causation of the micron dust pyroclastic flow which proceeded from the pulverisation of the WTCs. However, so unreasoned was that suggestion for the cause of the pulverisation and resulting pyroclastic flow that I have some difficulty in accepting at face value their denial of the presence of reinforcing steel within the WTCs' structure.
Furthermore, applying elementary linguistic analysis to the post(er) in question forces me to suspect the actual motive behind the (as yet, possibly fair enough)criticism. In other words I do not feel that their desire to 'set me straight' was entirely born of the affectionate philanthropy which I'm sure you'll agree we have come to expect as the norm on the forum here.

cheers Al..

[Thermate]

[Snowygrouch]

CB,
Here are the calcs in full which have been up for months; better check before saying I hadnt done them. (Thats two hats your going to have to eat now)

As for them being wrong, I asked TWSU3 to post the calcs on physicsforums and just ask anyone if they seem correct, I even gave him the web address.

So far he has obviously refused to give my calculations to people to ask if they are rubbish. The conclusion I draw from this is twofold:

1: Hes afraid I`m right
2: He isnt really very interested in real facts

Please illustrate the gap in my calculations. For the illustrations of the fuel tank layouts you will have to click on the weblink below.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5366&highlight=chall enger+tanks
----------------------------------------------
Strength of structural steel used in perimeter columns = 551MPa or 551N/mm2

Number of columns sheared (WTC1) = 33

Cross sectional area of columns at impact height of planes = 16130mm2

Total cross sectional area of steel sheared by impact= 1,064,580mm2

Velocity of plane at impact=500mph or 222m/s

Mass of plane at impact = 145,000kg (100,000kg dry weight + 10,000 gallons fuel)

Energy of plane@ impact velocity = 4 Giga-Joules (4x10^9 joules)

If the plane is to bounce off the building it must decelerate to zero meters/second over a distance near zero. We shall use a very generous figure of 2 meters (the smaller the figure the greater the force expended), this allows the building to instantaiously move 2 meters at impact which is highly unrealistic. If an object were to bounce off the distance figure would be much closer to zero, giving many; many times the instantaionus force I use here.

1 Joule = Amount of energy needed to apply a force of 1 newton over a distance of 1m

4 GJ/2meters = 2 Giga Newton’s must be expended in doing so.

Stress = force/ area
= 2GN/ 1,064,580mm2
= 1868N/mm2

Thus in order to “bounce off” the side of the world trade centre the steel would have to be over 3.5 times stronger than the steel actually used.

The above analysis is naturally simplified a great deal as I don’t have sufficiently accurate computer models (or the time) to run a finite element analysis routine.

Hence I used extremely generous figures in favour of a “bounce off” scenario and still fell short of the required stress figures by a very considerable margin.

What follows are simulations of wing impact and engineering schematics of the fuel tank layouts in a 767-200.

Of course an EMPTY plane will not penetrate with anything like the effect it did. Trouble is it WASNT empty and had 10,000 gallons of fuel in, or about 40 tons of fuel if you prefer by mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Enjoy.

C.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Do you figures take into account the different thicknesses of the building and the different construction materials or the angle of approach of the plane at imact ----DON'T THINK SO ----CALCULATIONS ARE WORTHLESS

[Snowygrouch]

1: The cross sectional area I used was calculated SPECIFICALLY for the impact floors, the beams are thicker at the base and taper out near the top.

Take the thickness at the bottom, take the tickness at the top. Divide by number of floors, this gives reduction per floor, then take base thickness minus reduction-per-floor times floors up to impact zone.

2: The angle of impact was fairly minimal, however if you wanted to include it you could change my figure of 300% beyond ultimate strength to about 250%.

Even so the energy of the plane STILL has to go into the steel; and the individual beam makeup of the outer colums means that really a moderate angle would not have much effect on the abaility of the beams to absorb the energy.

If you want I`ll redo the calcs with a force-vector diagram to see what the effect of the angle would be...up to you.

You have the rough angle for me?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Snowy if you used your brain and looked at the evidence you would realise there were no planes, have you not looked at the evidence?

[marky 54]

[Snowygrouch]

Look as far as I can se (correct me if I`m wrong) the evidence for no planes is as follows:

1: The video of the plane going into the tower looks "odd" (and it does i admit)

2: In one video something that looks like a nose comes out from the other side of the building.

Thats not very strong by itself; the videos are digital, its NOT like lots of photographs taken with a celluliod film camera. Its made up of inter-woven lines and the vids are all very low quality.

Considering the technical requriements of pulling off such a stunt such as magically altering ALL the amateur footage EVERYWHERE with nobody noticing, altering ALL the amateur photgraphs EVERYWHERE with nobody noticing etc etc etc....it all begins to look alot less convincing than simply a "plane hitting a building".

You can say "it shoudnt be able to go through a wall" all you like, the maths says otherwise. Formulas dont lie and neither does my calculator.

On a simple balancing scales way of deciding what probably happened the score is someting like this:

NPT: Melting video
NPT: Nose video
NPT: Internet site chit chat

PT: Plane debris
PT: ALL the videos
PT: ALL the photos
PT: ALL the calculations
PT: ALL the simulations
PT: ALL the eyewitnesses
PT: Totally feasible

I could go on; but for no planes it really isnt looking very good in the probability stakes here is it?

Until that list above changes dramatically my chips are with PT. That does NOT nessesarily mean the EXACT planes....

C.
------------------------------------------
Here is the effect the inclination of 10.8 degrees that the WTC1 impact had on the forces involved.

The horizontal component has been reduced from

4000000000 J to
3929000000 J

So plugging the numbers in....

Stress = force/ area (no angle)
= 2GN/ 1,064,580mm2
= 1868N/mm2

Stress = force/ area (Ten point 8 degree angle)
= 1.9646GN/ 1,064,580mm2
= 1845N/mm2

So instead of the stress being 3.39 times too large its now 3.348 times too large.

As I said earlier; not much difference at that angle.