Posted on 11/12/2005 11:32:57 AM PST by marketz
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Customer service/front counter Apple fitness -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Customer service Sports advertising firm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Medical position Life sera donor center -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chemistry technician Nutraceutical corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Software integration engineer Dateimage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Social work Company not listed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director interactive media Datamark -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Purchasing buyer Companion systems --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More Top Jobs >>
Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
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. 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.' " 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: jarvik@desnews.com
World & Nation + Utah + Sports + Business + Opinion + Front Page
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
The 'pancake' theory seems believable to me. Once a single floor failed and tons of concrete pancaked down upon the floor below, it set off an unstoppable avalanche.
So the buildings, in essence, swallowed themselves?
Floors falling inside ontop of each other created a momentum in bringing everything down?
That does make sense to me.
Ah...don't be too hard on this nut case...it's not easy getting over having been abducted by aliens and "probed"...it drove this guy nuts, and It's driven others nuts too...just visit DU.
Floors can't collapse inside the outer building structure because it's all one and the same!! Each floor of a high rise building is essentually all one piece supported by pilars, stack one on top of the other. Some pillars are lessor supporting pillars that don't run through several levels, others are main supports which run through several levels to which the slab is attached to.
Even if you postulate the existence of explosives, I don't think al Qaeda managed to hide explosives in each and every floor of the WTC, nor could they sequence the explosions to make it appear that the buildings fell down from their own weight. Whatever happened to start the failure, it continued on its own due to...gravity.
The outside of the building is merely sheets of glass that are hung and supported between each of these slabs.
Sorry, I don't understand anything about construction to follow what you said. The floors did come down into the lobby though.
The better tequilas aren't nearly as halucinogenic.
In the case of the WTC, the outside of the building was the main support structure. Holding up those panes of glass were steel beams. It was like an exoskeleton. Once the planes ripped gaping holes in that exoskeleton and then smashed and melted many of the interior columns, anything could happen.
Some buildings are constructed such that every 10-12' of exterior wall is supported by the floor below which is in turn supported by the wall below that, etc. The WTC was not constructed in such fashion. The walls themselves were pretty solid, and the floor trusses were fastened to them. The wall columns did rely upon the floor trusses to provide lateral stability, but the gravitational loads of the wall columns did not rest upon the floor trusses. Indeed, for a building of that height, putting the weight of the upper floors on the lower floors would have been absurd.
Air gets compressed as this happens, which blew out windows, making it look like little explosions just before the floors above pancaked into the next one below, and so on.
Many, if not most, buildings will suffer severe structural damage from the loss of even one major support pillar. That the WTC did not collapse immediately from the loss of many consecutive supports is pretty remarkable.
You make me puke.
>>>>Air gets compressed as this happens, which blew out windows, making it look like little explosions just before the floors above pancaked into the next one below, and so on.
Now that understood! THIS is why explosions were heard before the buildings collasped??!!
Of course this professor probably also believes that Joseph Smith translated long lost revelations from an ancient prophet using a peep stone while peering into a hat.
I'll take this "scientist" for what he's worth.
The wtc main support was provided by the central shaft, which in essence was a giant sized pillar (Like a tree trunk, but a little more complicated than that). Each slab also had "walls" which ran all the way to the exterior (in a cross shape from the center like you say. The pillars gave support and stability in between those for the floor above.
I think we are on the same page essentually. There is a blueprint around somewhere which shows how the towers were built.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maintained by the Physics Web Team |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There were explosions. Here is coverage of the 911 calls.
http://cf.wnbc.com/ny/sh/videoplayer/video.cfm?id=1317794&owner=ny
Forte Runningrock at post 111 seems to have a good explanation about that though.
Why, indeed, would terrorists perfectly drop buildings into a pile when it's much easier (and more plausible) to knock out one corner and hope they would fall across several blocks, doing ten times the damage?
Either you have a tinfoil conspiracy theory, or you accept the obvious...the buildings just fell down due to gravity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
