• 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.

Questions for Steven E. Jones

Right - I would just be adding serious questions and eliminating duplicates, etc. So far it sounds like I can gather the questions in this thread to give to him. Let me know.
 
I would take it one step further. I will pay him $1000 if he can demonstrate how he can get thermite to make a clean angle cut through a steel beam like those at the WTC.
 
chipmunk stew said:
If your analysis is correct that some of the glowing-red material found in the rubble weeks after 9/11 was molten steel: how does this support your *-therm*te hypothesis?
Click to expand...

Have you run experiments or otherwise established a baseline for:
a) how long it would take a thermite reaction cut through a WTC column?
b) how quickly the resulting molten material would cool?
 
I'd like to know what his take is on the fact that the overwhelming majority of structural engineers and CD experts disagree with his findings.
 
uk_dave said:
He probably imagines winning a nobel prize.
Click to expand...

I could ask him questions all day. But he doesn't reply to me anymore.
Also ever section of his paper has major errors. One of these days I've have to write up a complete refution of every section.
(And his earlier more dishonest versions) He has to know what he's doing!!

I think the worst of it is blatent Academic Fraud by rewriting of sources.
Example, FEMA, Bill Manning.
 
JamesB said:
I would take it one step further. I will pay him $1000 if he can demonstrate how he can get thermite to make a clean angle cut through a steel beam like those at the WTC.
Click to expand...
You might want to make that "upright column," for clarity. :D
 
Gravy said:
You might want to make that "upright column," for clarity. :D
Click to expand...

Actually I would be impressed if he could even get a clean angle cut through a horizontal column, but you are correct, an upright column would be the proper experiment.
 
Thanks for the great replies thusfar.

I think some of the questions and topics covered in the Jones v. Robertson podcast are good to ask again.

Even though the truthers like to highlight the fact that Leslie didn't touch on Building 7, or have free fall calculations on hand, he projected true expertise on the topic, while Jones dodged many of the questions.

Leslie explained about just how many demolition charges would have to be placed to satisfy the CD theory.

He then asked Jones how that effort could possibly have gone unnoticed by building occupants? Especially, given the global nature of the financial industry, with foreign markets open at all hours, the WTC was occupied 24x7.
 
Professor Jones and I have a mutual friend. This friend started sending me Jones' early powerpoint presentations and his earlier drafts of his paper in Oct 2005. I saw things that just didn't make sense to me in them (and I'm just a software engineer) and so I started a dialog with him vie email. It lasted for a few months. I brought firemen testimony about WTC7 but he rejected it saying "I don't think there was that much damage". Of course proof of such damage would end up destroying the need to go looking for a demolition theory - I thought to myself. I didn't burn bridges with him though and I've tried to remain civil and respectful.

I went to one of his presentations at UVSC, a college near BYU, and I had a nice question typed up that asked why WTC 7 needed to be demolished if the thing was shown by firemen's transits to be moving all over and they set up a collapse zone several hours before it collpased. The guy who was screening the written questions at the end read my entire question (it was a bit long as I had to include the evidence in the question) but ultimately he didn't hand it to Jones. I went up and asked him myself and that's when he told me that he believed that there wasn't that much damage. He's a nice man but I disagree with him on several points. This to me is important because if my country is going to be divided, it had better be because of the truth, not lies or sloppy mistakes.

I brought up the vertical column issue with him in my email this past week and I gave him a link (apparently I can't post a link to another site until I've posted 15 times - well, it's at debunking911.com and it's called thermite.html) showing the same diagonal cuts being made by excavation crews. He hasn't replied yet but he did remind me that he didn't say that it was proven to be cut with thermite. That's a true statement, but I sat in that presentation and watched him imply that it was cut with thermite, much to the rejoicing of the other CT's that were in the audience. "Boy, we found the smoking gun this time." I think I was a minority that night. Apparently gravity pulls the melted materials downward and so making a diagonal cut, even though it's longer, is faster as the dripping slag pre-heats the metal below - so said a welder in some forum I read - sorry I don't have that reference with me.

Bottom line, I would think he would welcome my (and others') criticism and questions. In the end, it would only make his paper stronger by eliminating error - and whatever's left, he could take to NIST and get the answers he's looking for without looking like a CT.

Anyway, I'll monitor this thread for a while and gather questions. Before I submit them to him for answers, I'll post the list here for review.
 
Debunk911Myths said:
Thanks for the great replies thusfar.

I think some of the questions and topics covered in the Jones v. Robertson podcast are good to ask again.

Even though the truthers like to highlight the fact that Leslie didn't touch on Building 7, or have free fall calculations on hand, he projected true expertise on the topic, while Jones dodged many of the questions.

Leslie explained about just how many demolition charges would have to be placed to satisfy the CD theory.

He then asked Jones how that effort could possibly have gone unnoticed by building occupants? Especially, given the global nature of the financial industry, with foreign markets open at all hours, the WTC was occupied 24x7.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to pass on my challenge. I figured that now he is retired he could use the money. :D
 
Why does he dismiss the firemen testimonies that indicated that they saw damages and believed the structure was due to collapse?
 
Last edited:
I think he would say that he deals with evidence like physical samples and photos, video, etc. rather than testimony, but that didn't stop him from making assertions about how the structures "should" have collapsed, which is more of a structural engineering question than a question of physics. And those assertions were made with little or no evidence regarding the damage and structure of the buildings themselves.

I have other ideas about why he rejected the evidence, but that's just my opinion and is based on assumptions and so I'll keep it to myself.
 
rcronk said:
Apparently gravity pulls the melted materials downward and so making a diagonal cut, even though it's longer, is faster as the dripping slag pre-heats the metal below - so said a welder in some forum I read - sorry I don't have that reference with me.
Click to expand...

This is true but only for a cut made by a man. Welders who want to cut a beam do so exactly like they did at the WTC, which we do see in the picture evidence, for the exact reason the welder stated.

If somehow you could get the Thermate to start along a diagonal it would not continue as gravity will pull it down and the same process which the welder discribes would take over as the metal would be preheated in front of it, but down with gravity, not along some straight diagonal course set up beforehand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom