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