Perhaps that "physics professor" should have talked to structural engineers instead of making an idiot of himself by speculating without the
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
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
• 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]