Bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
 

[url=http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html:d46d2]Link to Article[/url:d46d2]

[quote:d46d2]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 http://www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
Image
Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.
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.' "
Click to learn more...
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.[/quote:d46d2]

bla bla bla bla bla get a room with pyro

It's also quite plausible that a single bullet killed JFK, injured the then Texas Govenor, and knicked Zapruder on the cheek.

Yes - QUITE plausible.

[quote:8361f]"Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all,"[/quote:8361f]

Nevermind the eye-witness accounts on the plane. Or Project Bojinka. Or studies saying the exact OPPOSITE of what this guy is going on about.

They were probably placed there by the martians who are watching us, waiting to invade from their hiding place behind the moon.

[puts tinfoil hat on]

This is going to get out of hand quickly.

Anyway, I agree with the professor. Bombs did bring down both towers as well as WTC 7.

As long as were talking about eyewitnesses:
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6964


Here are the squibs the first article is talking about:
[img]http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture7%20(squib1).jpg[/img]

Here's a good paper also:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Oh, and here's another beauty:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/p ... 7639.shtml

[img]http://drue.com/wwbt/cat.tinfoil.hat.jpg[/img]

happy:

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":0d9ac]bla bla bla bla bla get a room with pyro[/quote:0d9ac]

Again another post of yours that absolutely useless.

oOo:

Don't be a smart-ass, if you have nothing useful to add or anything to counter what the Professor in the article says I highly suggest shutting your mouth.

[adjusts c132s blinders]

TGB! Please post some of those studies done that counter everything this man and many others have said, and make sure they weren't done by a Priest or a RNC spokesperson.

I just think it's funny that the people who beleive the thing opposite of what you believe are always the brainwashed ones...

[img]http://images.dvdempire.com/gen/movies/559h.jpg[/img]

[quote:8cc25]TGB! Please post some of those studies done that counter everything this man and many others have said, and make sure they weren't done by a Priest or a RNC spokesperson.[/quote:8cc25]

You say that, yet the article you link is owned and operated by a Church and "CapitolHillBlue", the liberals version of NEWSMAX.

But here's Popular Mechanics running through SEVERAL of the boogey-man claims that noone has been able to support BEYOND theoreticals. . .

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=1&c=y

And heres NIST's own investigation into the collapse (but - yanno - its a SINISTER government agency, so best to just dismiss their findings out of hand and trust the findings of someone without hands on experience of Ground Zero).

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/rele ... il0505.htm

Also - in the interest of fairness - something lacking in many of these Conspiracy Theorists websites. . .I give you a "rebuttal" to PM (which actually just repeats quite a few conspiracy theories next to facts to bolster the more controversial claims. . .dirty pool).

[quote="TGB!":c9304]

But here's Popular Mechanics running through SEVERAL of the boogey-man claims that noone has been able to support BEYOND theoreticals. . .

[url="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y"]http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=1&c=y[/url]
[/quote:c9304]http://serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm


NIST's claim is that the buildings collapsed as a result of fire. If a person believes this, good for them.

[quote=Stammer]Again another post of yours that absolutely useless.

.[/quote:95550]


at least Im consistent

these "theories" are more useless than my responces



now, go get your room with pyro

rolleyes:

Here's a link to him on 'The Situation Room' with Tucker Carlson. I haven't watched it yet because i'm at school with no sound, but i'm sure it's relevant to the original topic.

http://www.911blogger.com/2005/11/byu-p ... es-on.html

they debunked this on Bullshit

I'm pretty sure that both towers fell. I could care less how. And unless some random whacko guys planted these "bombs" and left them there just on the off chance that someday hijacked planes might crash into the towers, then I'm pretty sure I know who put them there. ANd if this guy is right, and if bombs were prepositioned, then these terrorists are even smarter than we thought (and we already thought they were pretty smart) and we should double of efforts to eradicate them.

Why does everyone who is conservative believe whatever THEY are told by their CONSERVATIVE government is always 100% correct.

Everytime something like this is posted the first things I hear is no way that can't be right.

Shit happens...hell ya'll used to think that believing yourself to be a homosexual is not youe choice...but is a metal disorder.

You never know how much someone would go to to build a legacy.

well Pyro I saw the planes fly into the building, unless Penn and Teller were up to it Id say it was terrorists

Too much iron causes it?!?! I thought it was a defect in the DNA strand.

;)

what was that one movie in where this mom looses her kid in a plane accident, and everything she knows seems to dissapear or not know her, or not existed ... well it ended up being some higher power/aliens watching and experimenting w/ us.

Well there was this one part in wich she was running from people, and than she looked up and there was a cloud that looked like a circle, and the cloud went straight up ... it was weird.

Well, I have no point other than saying that reminded me of that movie.

....With incoherrent posts like that you're not helping your cause in the slightest. Take an english language and grammar course and try again.

Tripper I thought you were ripping on my post, and than I saw the quote.

Everyone got the point.

Ill put in it easy terms for the inept.

Conservatives blindly think everything their government tells them is correct.

If something is posted against conservatives, it is automatically wrong because it goes against them.

In the 1950s (I think) sex crimes was the big hot button issue in America (and the cold war) and there was a propaganda machine working to make women go back to their roles of being controlled by men like pre-world war II. Well phychitrists (sp?) believed sexual predators need mental help instead of jail time...and they lumped in homosexuals because they had a slightly different perspective of what is meant in terms of sexual conduct. So obviouslly they're insane.

lol

I would have to disagree with that statement. I agree that human nature (regardless of whether you are "left" or "right") is to believe most of what comes from people that have the same core beliefs as you do, but I would not classify "government" as being as institution that the "right" trusts wholeheartedly. In fact, I think a characteristic of a conservative is to want less government because they don't trust that the government has their best individual interests at heart.

That's like saying all Liberals are whiney little fucks like yourself.

And you blindly think everything the government says is false. Why are we pointing fingers?

[quote:0d79e]
Conservatives blindly think everything their government tells them is correct.[/quote:0d79e]

Ah, no ...

[quote:0d79e]If something is posted against conservatives, it is automatically wrong because it goes against them.[/quote:0d79e]

Well ... after continually saying the government is wrong, with no proof and making stuff up, it just common sense to doubt everything the left says.

Theres this one reporter that came out with a book recently and she said that reporters should not liable be for making stuff up, but it is up to the people to question the reports
… I’m still questioning the whole thing about thousands of people dying in New Orleans.
The constant rapes and shootings, too many to list.

[quote="Jin-Roh":0d79e]Probably not gonna be as bad as the NEWS says it is... oOo:

If it is though... get a boat.[/quote:0d79e]

[quote:0d79e]... and there was a propaganda machine working to make women go back to their roles of being controlled by men like pre-world war II. [/quote:0d79e]

That’s just the NAGS creating tension because they are not being sexually satisfied, and they are not getting any surprise sex. Plus, aren’t all the efforts that the "militant feminists" going down the drain? Cause woman do want to be stay at home moms, they do want to have kids, they do want to be treated like they are a woman … not a dike.

Well...I have to base my feelings on either the lying of the bush administration or the lying of Martin's administration.

Hell...I don't even like the liberals...but all i got to say is at least they aint conservative. Id like the green party to win or something here.

I'm afraid I don't understand why this would be a conservative vs. liberal thing when it comes to the believability of bombs in the towers.

They fell down, we all saw planes hit them. If there were bombs as well, so be it.

The whole point of the article is to ask two questions in my mind:

1) Where there bombs in the buildings that contributed to the collapse of WTC1 WTC2 and WTC7?

2) If so, the next logical question would be 'Who put them there?'

Because it would be a long shot if it were a coincidence that on the same day two groups decided to blow up the WTC.

Say there were bombs in the buildings. Do anyone believe that the 19 hijackers put the bombs in there? If it was them, why hasn't anyone in the government or media said anything about it?

This is a serious accusation. It seems that many will completly deny it, some will say even if it's true, it doesn't change anything, and others will do some actual research of their own into the subject.

9/11 is the basis for the entire foreign policy of the US. I believe people should ask questions about what hapened that day. Same for London, Bali, Jordan, Madrid etc.


Anyway, here is a vid of the collapse of WTC7 that Tucker wouldn't show when he had the professor on. Draw your own conclusions, and I do encourage people to do that.

[url=http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg:4e55c]Video of WTC7 Collapsing from CBS[/url:4e55c]

There are other videos and topics about WTC7 on [url=http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html:4e55c]this[/url:4e55c] page:

ninty, you seem parinoid. If you leave the basement that light you see coming through the curtians is called daylight. Go out and examine it, dont worry, there are germs out there but they wont hurt you





BTW nice hat
[img]http://img216.exs.cx/img216/2442/getimage3qy.jpg[/img]

If you ask me, the video is inconclusive. You can't see what is going on near the base of the building or the back. Was it severely damaged from the other buildings? If it was bombed, and I don't discount that it was, that simply means there were more people involved. I don't think this is a big revelation. Most acknowledge that there are a ton of terrorists roaming the streets of the US.

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":f3281]ninty, you seem parinoid. If you leave the basement that light you see coming through the curtians is called daylight. Go out and examine it, dont worry, there are germs out there but they wont hurt you





BTW nice hat
[img]http://img216.exs.cx/img216/2442/getimage3qy.jpg[/img][/quote:f3281]

Nice "flame" rolleyes: Please don't try to do another, hurt my eyes reading that attempt.

Was that really necessary?

Try to stay on topic. I have a different view from you. You don't need to throw insults to prove anything.

I just picture you hiding in a bunker/basement looking up all of these theories. Everytime there is some far fetched idea or whacky notion out there you are all over it. It seems like paranoia (sp?) to me

Yeah I guess I got off-track...

So back to point ... Is there not a video showing the planes hitting the towers?

Well some argue that just a hit like that, and the jet fuel could not destroy the building.

It didn't get hot enough to bend the steel. That’s what conspiracy theory says.

However the building was not designed correctly, the exoskeleton was perfect, however it had no structure inside. Plus the entire wait had to help.
--

The other thing was the Pentagon, some say that that was a missile ... well I tend to lean more towards a missile on that one, it was too low, and there was supposedly no parts of a plane in the wreckage. Well, that’s what I know, if parts of a plane were found, than I must have put that valuable information in the back of my head and taken in a conspiracy theory for fun.

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":d36a0]

I just picture you hiding in a bunker/basement looking up all of these theories. Everytime there is some far fetched idea or whacky notion out there you are all over it. It seems like paranoia (sp?) to me[/quote:d36a0]

I came across the idea that there was something else going on on 9/11 2 or 3 years ago. It's not like this topic was made and then I jumped on it and said, 'yeah, bombs blew up the buildings'.

US Canadian and world politics are an interesting subject to me. I keep close tabs on what goes on in world governments because I enjoy it. I do research and come to a conclusion based upon the evidence goven. Many times this is in disagreement with what many people believe and sometimes in disagreement with what governments say.

If you would like to continue to live in your dreamworld, go right ahead. I, myself can't turn back. I've learned a lot and feel like I still have a lot to learn. If you trust others to do the right thing for everyone, more power to you. I don't trust anyone to do anything in the interests of myself or other citizens. This is why I hold a large interest in the decisions governments make.

Thats because you don't have religion in you ... go pray, and love your god.

The whole religion was in another topic, but this brings a good point.

Most people in religion that is not Islam live happily nowadays cause they have something to look forward, yes an afterlife, and they enjoy having holidays like Christmas, and they understand that there are consequences for bad things one does.

Well this all leads to trust in your fellow men.

Fuck off. Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't do.

I went to a catholic school for 13 years. I went to a Roman Catholic Church for the first 17 or so years of my life. Because I base my beliefs of everything off scientific fact, God does not, nor ever did exist. Faith is irrevelant to me. What this has to do with trusting someone or a government is a non issue.

Democracy is built on the basis that the PEOPLE of the nation keep WATCH over the government. The people do not work for the government, the government works for the people. The people of the US trusted the government after 9/11. This has led to an illegitimate and illegal war that a minority of citizens support. This is wrong. In addition, the MEDIA is RESPONSIBLE to provide fair and accurate reporting on the government in the interests of the citizens of that country, not the government. This has not happened.

When a government doesn't respond to the wishes of the people, you no longer have a democracy. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the citizens of a democratic country to watch over the government and see that they are making decisions based upon the BEST INTERESTS of the citizens of that country. That is why they are ELECTED.

When you trust governments, you end up with a dictatorship. When you watch a government and require them to make decisions in the best interest of the people, you have democracy. It is your democratic duty to scrutinize your government to make sure they are carrying out the wishes of the people who elected them. You tell the government what to do. Not the other way around.