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
Most of the weight of the floors was supported by the walls. The floor trusses themselves had essentially zero cantilever strength (meaning that if one end was unsupported, it would fall even if the other end was supported), and also meaning that unless the trusses were loaded non-uniformly (and I see no reason to believe that they were especially so) the ends of each truss would bear equal load. There were IIRC three "kinds" of truss. There were trusses that went from the central core to the exterior walls and supported only the weight of the floor in the immediate vicinity. Those trusses would put half their weight on the core and half on the exterior walls. There were trusses that went from the core to the wall and supported other trusses (basically four of these per floor). These would again put half their load on the core and half on the walls. Finally, there were trusses that went from the second group of trusses to the walls. These would put half their load on the wall, and half on the transfer trusses which in turn put half the load on the wall and half on the core. While the core did support a very large portion of the weight (including itself) the exterior walls bore more than half of the floor weight.
Where do they come up with this tripe? It's not worth the red ink from my venomous quill to respond to this lackwit.
"The truth is gaining momentum"
You've been hanging out with TLB haven't you?
But in that case, why would it be necessary to hijack the planes?
I don't know. The explosions were always the question marks that were in my head. But I'm satisfied with the explanation that was in post 111.
Troll PING!
Is that his latest Bush smear?
Dunno, but he likes to say "The TRUTH blah blah blah" often..
I had also heard or read somewhere, that these building had the structural support members on the outside of the building..a new type, (in 1963) of construction technique..self-supporting floor slabs, tied to the structural elements..
I didn't realize that either. That does make sense too.
Thank you very much for that insight.
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.