BYU Physics Professor Thinks Bombs, Not Planes, Toppled WTC

Status
Not open for further replies.

Roger

SatelliteGuys Pro
Original poster
Sep 11, 2003
844
0
This has been something that's been close to my heart for years. I say the government did this to get control of us with the Patriot Acts and Homeland Security. I think the Bush Admin are neo-Nazi’s that were behind the act to get their NWO 4th Reich which the common people like us are their enemies because they want a one-world system which will be led by Satan. So instead of calling our enemies enemies and giving us power by arming us or something they have made us all slaves by screening us the same as Arab’s and/or Muslims at the airports. This government has done nothing to give us patriots any power at all but screens us like any other person in the world so how the hell am I and American Patriots suppose to stand behind these neo-cons? What’s in it for us other than a police state with no privacy?

We are led to believe that the “hijackers” were smart enough to hijack planes who were also smart enough to have the airlines book their coast-to-coast planes at 20% capacity (Bullsh!t) so they could hi-jack them who also had NORAD stand down against any and all SOP’s while still being dumb enough to fly a plane into the part of the Pentagon that was under renovation thus having no affect. Something stinks in Denmark my friends.

This government was behind the attacks so they can place you under martial law and steal your liberties.

By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News

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.


In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net , whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.

Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News

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."


Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.


Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' "


In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:



• 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."



• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.



• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.



• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."



• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.



• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.



• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.



• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.



Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding."


Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September.


Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.


Wake up or Waco!
 
Not again! This crap has been debunked over and over and over again. It wasn't the planes that brought WTC down. It was the thousands of pounds of jet fuel burning at a high enough temperature to melt several critical steel jolints causeing the domino/pancake collape of the buildings. This has been proved beyond any rational doubt several times.

See ya
Tony
 
I'm glad we were able to get the site back up so you could post those interesting stories you find :D
 
Tony wrote:

"It was the thousands of pounds of jet fuel burning at a high enough temperature to melt several critical steel jolints causeing the domino/pancake collape of the buildings. This has been proved beyond any rational doubt several times."

Source?

What about WTC7 that wasn't hit by a plane? Science states that there wasn't enough heat to do that. What about the madrid fire that was white hot and didn't collapse that building when thewse buldings were built to withstand everything including a jet attack? Was your sources the same as the one who had the magic bullet theory or reported the lie known as the Gulf of Tonkin incedent as fact? I'm afraid so.
 
And Tony… what does your sources say about my sources that told me that this White House was going to attack lower Manhattan and blame it on their CIA asset Osama Bin Laden back in July 2001? My first thought when the planes flew into the WTC was government takeover because I was warned before hand.

I had prior knowledge of a neo-con attack!
 
TNGTony said:
Not again! This crap has been debunked over and over and over again. It wasn't the planes that brought WTC down. It was the thousands of pounds of jet fuel burning at a high enough temperature to melt several critical steel jolints causeing the domino/pancake collape of the buildings. This has been proved beyond any rational doubt several times.

See ya
Tony
So????? When will you be so kind, as to prove it to me?

Al
 
Roger said:
I say the government did this to get control of us with the Patriot Acts and Homeland Security. I think the Bush Admin are neo-Nazi’s that were behind the act to get their NWO 4th Reich which the common people like us are their enemies because they want a one-world system which will be led by Satan.

They better hurry, they only have a couple of years left. :rolleyes:

Looks like we need to turn over the reigns of the government over to the Christians if there is a massive conspiracy to put Satan in power.
 
voomvoom said:
So????? When will you be so kind, as to prove it to me?

Al
It is impossible to prove something to some one when they have their hands over their ears and yelling "I'm not listening" every time it is explained rationally.

I recommend a look at the PBS Nova eposode, Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel programs on the subject for those who wish to be spoon-fed the information.

If you care to read articles with small words that explain what happened and why, chose from any link below:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/wtc_science_010919.html
http://gothamgazette.com/community/1/news/797
http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=040805021055
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7236
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=180416
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/nyregion/20towers.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/26/nyregion/26towers.html
In a conclusion that may have ramifications for understanding other tall buildings and future structures, investigators from the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that the test used to determine fireproofing sufficiency, then and now, may itself be flawed - unable to predict accurately what will be required in a real-life fire. As a result, the towers indeed may been more vulnerable to a fire than anyone could have known.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Why can't I post to classifieds?

Eddie Guerrero passes away

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)