WTC7 collapse longer than Jones' estimates

I saw this video some time ago and assume others here have probably seen it though I have not noticed it posted. The initial wording in the video is annoying I know but I can't really find fault in it.

wtc7 collapse

Steven Jones professes to abide by the scientific method and scorns others for not looking at all the 'available data'. Why does he not show this video. Unless I am wrong it shows clearly that the collapse took longer than his estimates. I am not saying that this discounts wtc7 as a CT but rather as 'data' which should be shown along-side other collapse sequences of WTC7

What do you guys think?

Is this the video that says it actually took 20 some odd seconds to collapse?

no it says 13 or 14 or something. It's a short video. Again, I know that does not discount a CT but for authors like David Ray Griffin etc to write books stating 6.5 when this estimate is 'clearly' false seems dishearteniing at the very least.

Steven Jones addressed this video on 911Blogger.com...

From Prof. Jones...

In my paper, I painstakingly point out that the collapse time is measured thus:

Speed: How fast did the southwest corner of the roof fall? (Students and I measure [6.5 +- 0.2] seconds for the SW corner of WTC 7, after this corner begins its steady fall.)

If you look at other demolitions, as I have done, you will see that often there is early "kinking" and weakening in the building. If you start timing when the first action begins, you will often find a fairly long time (around 20 seconds) for the entire demolition -- including the pre-weakening phase. But the time for a section of the roof to descend to the ground after the roof begins its steady fall is typically a little longer than free-fall time (in a vacuum), both in known CD's and in the fall of the roof (we veiwed the SW corner) of WTC 7.

ahhhh! Thank you. I have read that paper. So I was fooled by the wording in that damn video.... a logical fallacy no doubt. DAMMIT!

I would also like to retract my statement about David Ray Griffin if I may. Though I have only thus far re-checked A New Pearl Harbor, there is no reference to a total collapse time for WTC7 in the book.

Basically they assert that the collapse of the penthouse was the initiating event for global collapse and that is where they start their counter.

Regardless, every CD I have seen the building is still there for a good 20 seconds after the final countdown. However, once the building begins to fall it falls exactly like we saw with wtc 7.

And lets not even consider that it never should have fucking fallen in the first place. Argue fuckin semantics. I understand the point of accuracy, but do you see the straws that have to be grasped at to try to discredit this guy? And yet the Bush administrationcan lie with impunity.

are you talking to me? I fully understand the dynamics of WTC 7 but want to make sure I have the facts straight. Though I rarely use CT as a talking point anymore, I have said in the past that building 7 fell in 6.5 seconds. I know I did not 'pull' that line out of thin air.

It seems to me that myself and other sources have quoted Jones out of context.

Actually I just ran a check:
here is one from infowars:
Is anybody else getting sick of the, "WTC 7 had structural damage" argument. Look at these two pictures. One is of the Federal building in OKC, it is almost half-way gone and yet it did not collapse. The Damage to WTC 7 does not even come close, yet it fell onto itself in 6.5 seconds. So how did WTC 7 fall? Structural damage...? I don't think so.

And I found this quote allegedly made by steven jones regarding the aforementioned video:

"We screwed up. We had never seen the CBS video when we claimed that it took WTC 7 6.5 seconds to collapse. We only relied on the street video. that does not show the Penthouses. By the time we saw the CBS video, we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth. We just ignored the evidence.

source

I do not know how reputable the source as it gives know links to where jones said this. Could be rubbish. Edit: the above link does seem like utter bullshit. I could not really see Jones saying this.

911booger.com is a "Debunker" site. Nothing but trash.

http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/0...old-calls.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werther

are you talking to me?

---

Easy killer. I was talking in general about the claims made by those who would discredit Mr. Griffin. I know where you stand more or less. Short answer: NOPE, I wasn't ;)

so they openly and consistantly commit slander?

@ augie

I was kidding, I was gonna post a pic of Robert Deniro....you know which one

Pretty much. As do most "debunker" sites.

Most "debunker" sites, and most "faux truther" sites.

You mean like contrlled demolition.COM or whatever???
HEHHE

Quote:

---

Pretty much. As do most "debunker" sites.

---

I realize that people will post bullshit, but that they would completely fabricate a story is, to my naive mind, astounding.

Damn Gold .....why'd you call Fetzer a porker. That's fucked up man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werther

@ augie

I was kidding, I was gonna post a pic of Robert Deniro....you know which one

---

Not ONLY do I not know which one... I don't even know who the bloddy fuck we're talking about! Is it Dr. Jones (NOT Indiana) David Ray Griffin, or fuckin Robert Deniro?

I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about either I just realized that the link I quoted above was 911BOOGER not blogger. That made for a good laugh.

Does the link work? And if so, what comes up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werther

I realize that people will post bullshit, but that they would completely fabricate a story is, to my naive mind, astounding.

---

But until you go wallow in it for a few, you never grasp the extent, and how awful these people are. How Jon does it id beyond me.