It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 09:32 PM
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
by Dr. Steven E. Jones
published: October 8, 2006

"In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the
Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use
of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11
Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all
three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is
suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been
analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government."

KMFNWO says - I am happy to announce that this document has been peer reviewed by the prestigious journal New Civil Engineering thereby removing a very important obstacle for the 9/11 truth movement. I hope you enjoy it and my thanks to Professor Jones for his tireless effort to bring forward the truth.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by KMFNWO]

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 10:11 PM
Good post my friend. I wish I had the link to the PBS broadcast where the owner told the reporter that they (the fire chief and he) decided to "pull" the building. He admits it on TV!
Empirical evidence is always good to have, but a confession from the crook himself is better! Why aren't they showing that all over the news? Because Murdoch is a buddy of his, and Murdoch owns the media.
If anyone can find that link, would they please post it here?

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:16 PM
I just gotta say that the very first thing I thought when I saw the buildings come down was "demolition".

I said this to the guys I was working with and of course they all laughed and then sided with the later news reports that the planes brought down the buildings.

Of course, alot of the trades came around as they thought about it.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by cmongo4

power of google

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:34 PM
Not one mention of Jones' beloved (but totally redundant) hypothesis of thermate. It's not surprising he decided to play cautious. He knew the evidence for that idea (despite all the uncorroborated claims he makes to audiences easily duped by sloppy science) is as weak as a wet toilet tissue and would never get past review by his scientific peers. Apparently, he still believes that the molten metal pouring out of the 81st floor of the South Tower shortly before it was destroyed was iron - even though he consulted with journalist Christopher Bollyn who told him that Stanley Praimnath, an ex-employee of Fuji Bank, had contacted him and said that the very floor hit by Flight 175 contained large numbers of lead batteries used as an emergency power back-up for the bank's computers. As lead melts at the temperatures reached by office fires, it is almost certain that the molten metal was mostly lead, not iron, making Jones' hypothesis of steel having been melted by thermate completely unnecessary. Not that this information has changed Jones' fixed views, because he would then have to admit that he had made no original contribution to 9/11 research....
For a critique of Jones' belief in the use of thermate to help bring down the South and North Towers, see:

new topics

top topics

log in