POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
A Brigham Young University physics professor has gone public with his hypothesis that the New York World Trade Center towers and WTC Building 7 were destroyed not by fire and damage from the airplane strikes, but by explosives placed within the buildings prior to the attacks. Professor Steven E. Jones joins the growing ranks of experts who refute the official explanation for the collapse of the buildings, all three of which were leased by billionaire Larry Silverstein. Jones' paper has received increasing media attention, unusual in an area that has traditionally been shunned by mainstream media as the realm of conspiracy theory.
 



deseretnews.com
The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor. In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.

Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations."

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.

As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


After 3 years and US$20,000,000 the National Institute of Standards and Testing produced an analysis of the attack on the towers and the subsequent collapses, receiving widespread criticism for approaching the project from a preconceived conclusion and working backwards - flying in the face of established scientific practice. Since publication, the report's conclusion has been refuted by many in the scientific, emergency response, and general communities. One of the more well-known advocates of the "9-11 truth movement" is Jim Hoffman, whose excellent website can be found at 911research.wtc7.net...

The NIST reports can be downloaded here:

wtc.nist.gov...


Prof. Jones claims were recently reported in a local affiliate news story. For the 9-11 "inside job" theory to reach televised news is quite a milestone, and hopefully will be a sign of things to come. The video can be viewed here:

VIDEO LINK

Jones' WTC paper can be reviewed here:

www.physics.byu.edu...


One of the central arguments in Jones' paper for explosives being used to bring down the buildings is the collapse of WTC7, a 47-storey building which imploded into its own footprint at near free fall speed and in a fashion eerily reminiscent of controlled demolitions. Photographs taken of the building after the collapse of the twin towers show that the fires in building 7 were relatively small and isolated, and that damage to the building was minimal; particularly in contrast with other buildings in the complex which sustained enormous damage and were completely gutted by fire, yet did not collapse. Other steel-frame buildings around the world have also been shown to survive catastrophic fires without collapsing.




Proponents of the government's theory that the building collapsed due to fire cite the picture on the right as evidence of fires able to collapse a steel-framed building. However it is now known that there were diesel fuel tanks underneath the loading dock in WTC7 with pipes and day-tanks on various floors:

* Two tanks, maximum capacity 11,600 gallons each. Found intact after the collapse. 20,000 gallons total was recovered from these by the EPA.
* Two tanks, maximum capacity 6.000 gallons each. Found ruptured, but not exploded, after the collapse. At the time of the FEMA report, the tanks had yet to be extracted and examined.
(Source: NIST WTC report)

Diesel makes lots of very dark, very thick smoke when it burns. If fire did reach any of the two 6,000 gallon tanks, or they were still pumping fuel up into the building through the generator feed pipes, this would create a huge amount of smoke, disproportionate to the size and intensity of the fire. Claims that the diesel tanks exploded are unsupported, further supported by the fact that FEMA never mentioned any exploded tanks in their report on the examination and cleanup of the ruins of WTC7. The volume and thickness of smoke is not necessarily indicative of a raging inferno, as the lack of any awe-inspiring WTC7 fire pictures and the lack of any smoke coming out of the side of the building will attest to.

Regardless of the intensity of the fires in WTC7, no steel-framed building has ever collapsed in a perfect implosion in the history of construction, and likely never will again.




external image

WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition - ATSNN




posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Good work.

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
it's about time. i can't believe it's taken this long for someone 'real' to be outraged at the OBVIOUS lie.
there should be an army of outraged physicists, out there. i mean, although physics doesn't seem like an exciting field to the layman, it is a field populated with truthseekers.

i wonder if this guy has heard yet about all the dead(assassinated) microbiologists?



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Perhaps that "physics professor" should have talked to structural engineers instead of making an idiot of himself by speculating without the facts.

I am not the ultimate expert in structural engineering, but there are a few facts I know which this "physics professor" should have checked before making such bold and unnacurate claims.

This particular topic has been explained and debunked with facts so many times in these forums, that I can't understand why people keep coming up with "made up claims" which don't have one inch of truth in them; and with some understanding of the structure of buildings, and the physics of structural engineering, they can be easily debunked.

Anyways, let's take a look at a few of the points he "claims," and see if he is right or wrong.


The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor. In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.


First of all, it doesn't matter whether a building falls by explosives, or by the fires and explosion from an aircraft, when the integrity of the structure in a building is compromised and it starts falling, it will fall at the same speed, no matter what caused the building to collapse. The building will not fall any faster even if there were any explosives.

Physics doesn't magically change because of the cause a building falls. When it starts falling it would fall at the same speed, unless he is trying to claim that some gravity device was used to negate gravity or a giant hand pushed down the falling mass of debris. A physics professor should know this, but I guess this one is not aware of this particular fact.

Second, in controlled demolitions the explosions are made from the bottom floors to the top. We don't see this in any of the videos of the fall of the towers.

Third of all, the towers did not fall in a "symmetrical way", none of them fell in a "symmetrical way "like he claims. Buildings are made from many pieces, in a way that when there is too much stress in any part of the building and it falls down, it will fall down pretty much straight down if there is enough stress in several parts of the redundant design of the building.

Like I said, buildings are not made of one entire piece of iron like he seems to imply. Buildings are made from the sum of millions (well, not millions but tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands) of pieces which explains why buildings would not fall to one side like a tree would.

In the following statement we can see again that this "physics professor" don't seem to know much about structural engineering when he claims the following.


The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."


As I was saying, reading the above statement of this "physics professor," shows his ignorance, once more, about structural engineering, or at least it shows his lack of understanding of the basics of physics behind structural engineering.

There is no way that a skyscrapper would fall sideways and cause "more damage" since buildings are not just one piece of iron which can be made to fall sideways. Even if explosives are place at the base of any of the towers, when the integrity of the structure fails and begins to fall, the building would fall mostly straight down, some parts of it will fall to the sides, but most of it will fall straight down.

BTW....perhaps the professor doesn't know, for some reason, that Islamic terrorists tried to blow the WTC at it's base in 1993. It didn't work, although the explosion did kill over 100 people if i remember correctly.

Anyways, to make a building start to fall to one side, you would need to exert enough force at the top of the building so that a large part of it's mass would sway off the building's center and to one side.

Only earthquakes or very high winds would have enough force to do this, and when the building starts falling to the side, the structural failure would make the entire structure fall mostly at it's center. It would be like building a small scale skyscrapper from dominoe pieces. If you hit it at it's top, or center, you will see that the pieces will fall pretty much straight down.

In conclusion, this man doesn't know what he is talking about, and I laughed when he made the statement that there needs to be a "non political organization" that investigates the fall of the towers. He is showing his own political affiliation when he is trying to feed people with made up claims which obviously he didn't take enough time to research.

Why would anyone try to feed people with disinformation, like he is trying to do, when they don't have an agenda behind their intentions?

This particular case proves that just because a man, or a woman, has a degree in one particular science, doesn't necessarily means that he/she knows anything about the rest of the branches of science. The same can be said of some politicians who claimed more or less the same thing and showed they do not have a basic understanding of the physics behind structural engineering.


[edit on 14-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
muaddib, stick to topics you know.
this "physics professor", is a physics professor.
i doubt you even read the paper, based on your comments. to put it mildy, your arguments turn into molten goo in the heat of his.
you're plain wrong, little mouse.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
What I want to know is why is it so important to so manny people to have there goverments be the Bad guy?
Now im not saying the gov is all peaches and cream .But commin sence will tell you the gov wouldent go around creating Massive destroction worth billions just to invade another country .When it would be just as easy to come up with a hundred other reasions.
after all desert storm had nothing to start with no massiv destroction was needed to convince people we needed to do it.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
So one Mormon physics professor whose career has been in nuclear fusion knows more about this than a phalanx of structural building engineers? Why, just because he wrote something that matches up with your own views?

Pretty sad. :shk:

[edit on 11/14/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Read or watch this...

Anatomy of the Collapse

[edit on 14-11-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Read or watch this...

Anatomy of the Collapse


There is nothing to read or watch there.

The link doesn't work, and we have quite a few links already about this topic in the WTC threads.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
What I want to know is why is it so important to so manny people to have there goverments be the Bad guy?
Now im not saying the gov is all peaches and cream .But commin sence will tell you the gov wouldent go around creating Massive destroction worth billions just to invade another country .When it would be just as easy to come up with a hundred other reasions.
after all desert storm had nothing to start with no massiv destroction was needed to convince people we needed to do it.

All common sense and simple logic are thrown out the window when discussing 9/11.
It's utterly usless trying to argue facts with people who simply have a pychological need for the government to be behind 9/11.
Nevermind that in all likely hood a plane crashing into a buiding would have caused the same effect as "pre positioned" explosives. Why be redundant? It makes no sense at all. Neither does suggesting that an extremely active buiding with several thousand workers would not notice explosives being place throughout the building (in order to place the explosives into places where it would make the buildings collapse the way they did, you would need to do some serious work - knocking down a bunch of walls, etc.)

Why in three or so years go through all the trouble of hiring middle eastern men who are willing to make their countries and religion look bad, make them go through pilot training, make them hijack planes, then make them crash the planes into buildings, when you could have just blew up the building just like that and then blamed it on them?



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Read or watch this...

Anatomy of the Collapse


There is nothing to read or watch there.

The link doesn't work, and we have quite a few links already about this topic in the WTC threads.


[edit on 14-11-2005 by Muaddib]


Funny, I can click on it and it works fine. I'll try to fix it...




Though the horrific, shocking details of the infamous September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center were played over and over by the American media for weeks after it, there are still many questions and holes that continue to haunt the public. This program, originally produced for the educational cable channel the Learning Channel, aims to dissect the day in absolute detail. Using CGI graphics, interviews with witnesses, and discussions with those who designed and engineered the buildings, ANATOMY OF A COLLAPSE clears up many of the day's mysteries.


Basically if you're serious about finding out just how the buildings collapsed you can watch this program, it’s given in great detail.



[edit on 14-11-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
So one Mormon physics professor whose career has been in nuclear fusion knows more about this than a phalanx of structural building engineers? Why, just because he wrote something that matches up with your own views?

Pretty sad. :shk:



i personally don't care if satan is the one telling me the truth. if it's the truth, it's the truth and the messenger is unimportant. if peer review has any value, then there are more and more 'peers' coming out of the woodwork that will agree with this prof's analysis.

i find it interesting that you said 'phalanx'. that is a perfect description of THAT particular group of engineers. they use there credentials to hide the truth behind a shield of obfuscation and misdirection.
those who prefer to continue believing the lie, will do so, the same as i have continued to KNOW the truth since fall 2001. it was an inside job, and science proves it. however, politics and media will not admit that scientists are more empirical than agenda-driven jingoists.

the purposes for the 'attack' was to create chaos and start WORLD WAR THREE. it is not about religion, oil, or currency. these things have NO MEANING to the elite other than being tools in the mass manipulation toolbox.
the world will be depopulated. there is a holocaust coming on earth that will make WWII look like a 'tulip walk'.
when the dust settles, the evil overlords expect to have a completely subjucated population.
the famous murals at the denver international airport perfectly illustrate the whole plan. so does the uncanny card game from steve jackson games called, 'illuminati, NWO' which came out in the early nineties, despite an attempt by the secret servise to quash the game.

read about it here. see the prophetic game cards, too.



get ready for the CDC and 'combined disasters'. they are the next 'cards' in the 'deck', and we see they already started playing them, releasing 'avian flu'(modified version of the infamous spanish flue of 1918?) and using haarp to cause hurricanes, and fema to manage the movements of those tabled for elimination.

my views will probably never jibe with yours, djohnsto77. let's maybe just agree to fiddle a duo while rome burns.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
No but a phallanx of engineers that work for UL all think the 9-11 official story is hogwash...

they still stand by there claim... that it would have had to be 1000 degrees hotter than it could have got, for the steel to have melted...

they weren't at the crash...they only know that in every test, they couldn't get the steel to weaken until 3000 degrees farenheit, or 2000 degrees for a LOT longer than it was exposed to it...

either way... this little mormon prof, is hardly the only official and educated person that is questioning this situation... las vegas tribune- UL labs comment

The few demolition experts that i heard from, all said they were amazed that a building could fall so straight into its own footprint, that wasn't a controlled demolition...
there are several examples from early New York development, where controlled building demos didn't go as well as this terrorist act did.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
....................
my views will probably never jibe with yours, djohnsto77. let's maybe just agree to fiddle a duo while rome burns.


Ok, since you claim that science can explain how a building can fall faster when using explosives, can you provide the proof for this, since it is one of the points this professor is trying to put accross?

And could you present scientific proof, none of which this professor is presenting for some reason, that skyscrappers can fall sideways? ... This professor is just speculating without any data to back his claims.


[edit on 14-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I watched those towers collapse in real time and many times since. It is evident to me that the collapses began in the area of the impact of the planes. The fall was not exactly symetrical, even though there is plenty of testimony that buildings such as these are designed to collapse downward instead of topple which would cause much more damage. When the first tower began to collapse, the collapse started, as I said, from where the planes impacted and you can see that the top floors of the first tower tilted considerably at first. Also, this was not a pancake collapse starting at the top with just one floor, it was very many floors falling simultaneously on the floors below.

As for the smaller buildings, I don't know. I didn't see them fall, but I'm not buying that they were purposely demolished either. This guy has as much credibility as the goofy weatherman.

www.usatoday.com...



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
What I want to know is why is it so important to so manny people to have there goverments be the Bad guy?
Now im not saying the gov is all peaches and cream .But commin sence will tell you the gov wouldent go around creating Massive destroction worth billions just to invade another country .When it would be just as easy to come up with a hundred other reasions.
after all desert storm had nothing to start with no massiv destroction was needed to convince people we needed to do it.


It is important to so many people to know if their government is the "bad guy" and is corrupt because it is counter to democracy and counter to what it means to live in America. Uh, well governments have throughout history undertaken acts to persuade their populace to support something by vile means. Like for example Hitler blaming the burning down of the Reichstag on Jewish peoples. Why do you have a problem with people making sure their government is not overstepping their bounds? That kind of step-in-line thinking is what caused some of the biggest abominations in history.

- Attero



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
No but a phallanx of engineers that work for UL all think the 9-11 official story is hogwash...

they still stand by there claim... that it would have had to be 1000 degrees hotter than it could have got, for the steel to have melted...


Since when does steel have to melt to lose it's integrity and collapse under tons of weight when there is enough stress in the structure?...


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
they weren't at the crash...they only know that in every test, they couldn't get the steel to weaken until 3000 degrees farenheit, or 2000 degrees for a LOT longer than it was exposed to it...

either way... this little mormon prof, is hardly the only official and educated person that is questioning this situation... las vegas tribune- UL labs comment

The few demolition experts that i heard from, all said they were amazed that a building could fall so straight into its own footprint, that wasn't a controlled demolition...
there are several examples from early New York development, where controlled building demos didn't go as well as this terrorist act did.


Maybe those "demolition experts" should brush up on their basic knowledge of structural engineering.

Here they can start with this site.

www.icivilengineer.com...

There is even a link in there where you can build and bust structures.

library.thinkquest.org...



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   


You have voted wecomeinpeace for the Way Above Top Secret Award.


I like you ALOT wecomeinpeace!



Excellent Post that only shows that the WATS award in your possession is WELL WORTHY!

Expect the Counter Attack of the Conservative Groups - oh wait, they are here Already!

I think some people really do not want the RED PILL - they enjoy being Lied to and living in a World of Fantasy and Dreams.

Good Night.




posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
In all honesty I don't know if I could agree with the prof. other than to reopen the 911 investigation and release all the footage.

3 buildings collapsed in one day "apparantly" from 2 planes laden with enough fuel to cross the US. What I am interested in is WTC7 and how NO ONE can explain how it fell.

Note: Even FEMA dared not say how it fell. These are the exact words used in official report.

WTC 7 Collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20pm. There were no known casualities due to this collapse. The performance of WTC7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings.
LINK




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Why in three or so years go through all the trouble of hiring middle eastern men who are willing to make their countries and religion look bad, make them go through pilot training,


Well how about someone offer you $100,000 or more to train as a pilot? And who said anything about them being Islamic fundamentalists when the "apparant" ringleader was in a strip bar and drinking, along with four others? Do really think they cared about religion?


Telegraph.co.uk
According to the FBI, Mohamed Atta, the pilot of the first hijacked aircraft that crashed into the World Trade Centre, and his accomplices spent some of their time in Las Vegas at the Olympic Bar, a downtown strip club.


~Peace
~



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
But what's truly amazing is these researchers, armed with 3 solid years, 20 million smackeroonies, the WTC blueprints they refuse to release for public scrutiny, and 12000+ images & pieces of footage they also refuse to release...still neglected to explain the collapse mode of the towers.

As for WTC7, they hardly touched it, and again, no collapse mode was presented. Still waiting on the final report for that one. "Soon", they say.

If I was an American taxpayer, I'd be asking for my $20,000,000 back.

And if you believe FEMA's fairytale that WTC7 collapsed from fire, then my advice would be next time you're in a steel-frame building that has a couple of small fires in it, run your booty off, because that puppy's gonna come tumbling down faster than Jack and Jill.



[edit on 2005-11-14 by wecomeinpeace]



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join