• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anomolies at ground zero

Docker said:
The slide where he shows 7 earlier in the day with little smoke. He gave that lecture a while ago, you cannot say it was deliberate.
Click to expand...
You're saying that in his 2006 presentation he ACCIDENTALLY used that photo, rather than any of the photos or videos I presented? Is that what you're saying, Docker? That scientist Jones accidentally used the photo and talked about it?

And here is my description of that photo, from page 86-87 of my paper:

The title of the slide is "WTC 7 on the Afternoon of 9/11/01"
​
In his February, 2006 presentation at Utah Valley State College, Dr. Jones spends a good deal of time discussing WTC 7’s condition and playing videos of its collapse. Here’s a slide he uses as an overview. Keep two things in mind here: Jones is a scientist who surely must know how the scientific method works, and Jones presents this as being representative of WTC 7’s condition: [Slide]

Above the photo it says, “Not much smoke or visible damage.” First, this photo was not taken in the afternoon from the area of WTC 1, as Jones claims. It was taken in the morning, shortly after the towers collapsed, from Church Street at the southeast corner of the site, as far from WTC 1 as it’s possible to be and still be in view of the site.

How can we tell it’s a morning shot? The sun is strong on WTC 7’s east face, and the south face is in shadow. Debris from tower 2 is at left, WTC 4 is at center, and WTC 5 is at right. Why does this anger me? Because, as we read in the eyewitness accounts, the fires in WTC 7 did not spread extensively until the afternoon. Steven Jones deliberately chose a photo that was taken before WTC 7 was heavily involved with fire.
Click to expand...
He's a disgrace, and so is your behavior here, Docker. Why are you doing this?
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
You're saying that in his 2006 presentation he ACCIDENTALLY used that photo, rather than any of the photos or videos I presented? Is that what you're saying, Docker? That scientist Jones accidentally used the photo and talked about it?

And here is my description of that photo, from page 86-87 of my paper:


He's a disgrace, and so is your behavior here, Docker. Why are you doing this?
Click to expand...

He may have been misled. He only got into 9/11 last year. You cant say it was deliberate without proof.
 
Howdy folks...

Just a question...

Does anyone know when those bottom two pictures of the police crusier were taken ?

Because in the bottom picture, in the background it looks like the towers and building 7 are still standing...
 
Jedi_Master said:
Howdy folks...

Just a question...

Does anyone know when those bottom two pictures of the police crusier were taken ?

Because in the bottom picture, in the background it looks like the towers and building 7 are still standing...
Click to expand...


Some of the NYC natives seem to think the photos were taken well away from the WTC site, and suggested the vehicle had been moved there some time after the event.

And welcome to the forums. :)

-Gumboot
 
Jedi_Master said:
Howdy folks...

Just a question...

Does anyone know when those bottom two pictures of the police crusier were taken ?

Because in the bottom picture, in the background it looks like the towers and building 7 are still standing...
Click to expand...
you obviously haven't read the thread. The police cruiser is next to the East River under the FDR highway overpass no where near the WTC site. Your looking across the East River into Queens or Brooklyn. You do not see the twin towers in either curiser picture.
 
gumboot said:
Some of the NYC natives seem to think the photos were taken well away from the WTC site, and suggested the vehicle had been moved there some time after the event.

And welcome to the forums. :)

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
That assumes that the picture is related to 9/11 and that is debatable. There is no date, us NY natives know it ain't at ground zero and we dont know if it was moved to this location from ground zero or it burned in an unrelated event.
 
firecoins said:
The NIST report om WTC 1 and 2 and the 9/11 commission both dispute everything Jones says and are admissable in court as they were written under the laws of perjury.
Click to expand...

Please present proof that Jones deliberately misled anyone. I'm still waiting
 
Docker said:
Please present proof that Jones deliberately misled anyone. I'm still waiting
Click to expand...
Well since the The 9/11 commission and NIST reports are considered the offical report and Jones is deliberatly saying different from this. By reason of deduction, he is committing libel. He is blaming everyone but the 9/11 perps.
 
Docker said:
Please present proof that Jones deliberately misled anyone. I'm still waiting
Click to expand...


Because no one could be stupid enough to ACTUALLY believe what he is claiming. Therefore he must know he is lying. ;)

-Gumboot
 
firecoins said:
Well since the The 9/11 commission and NIST reports are considered the offical report and Jones is deliberatly saying different from this. By reason of deduction, he is committing libel. He is blaming everyone but the 9/11 perps.
Click to expand...

He has never blamed anyone. It is not libel to disagree with a report.

Yet again I ask for your proof that he deliberately misled by his choice of building 7 picture.
 
firecoins said:
you obviously haven't read the thread. The police cruiser is next to the East River under the FDR highway overpass no where near the WTC site. Your looking across the East River into Queens or Brooklyn. You do not see the twin towers in either curiser picture.
Click to expand...

OOps...

I'll back out now...

Carry on...
 
I'm going to send gravy;s paper to Jones, just make sure he knows what is being said about him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom