Posted on 11/12/2005 11:54:34 AM PST by andyk
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. 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.
That guy had 4 posts in 6 years.
As for the article above...BYU? They are one of the more conservative universities if I am thinking of the right place. Physics prof infiltrator! I guess his politics doesn't necessarily rear its head in the hard sciences. What is that page to check political contributions?
And here the nutbaggery comes full circle. Even if his fruitcake theory of planted explosives were correct, wouldn't they likely have been planted by the same guys who arranged for the planes to hit? Or was it just the most unbelievable coincidence that both these things happened at the same moment? See, when your kookery lacks internal consistency, you have a real problem...
I don't know about being the poster child for tenure elimination. He has so much competition from much better known profs like Churchill and Whatshisname, the one in FL on trial for collecting $ to give to terrorists to blow us up, plus there are tons of local "favorite sons" on every campus.
Read Later...
And that they MIGHT succeed one day in SERIOUSLY damaging the propety. Property, if my theory is upheld, that is woefully vacant and losing money by the bucketloads.
So lets say the owners prepositioned explosives to demolish the WTC if and when it was seriously struck by terrorists again.
And, being heartless, could removed themselves from any financial woes (lawsuits, tenant flight, uninsurability) and thus "made all them problems go away" with just a little pre-planning.
Conspiracy, not really...
More like financial opportunists trying to get out of the morass they found themselves in.
Of course, they would have to have absolutely NO morals regarding the police, firefighters, and trapped tenants at the time they blew the charges...
Geeeze, I don't know what to think about this.
I do know a bit about explosives & demolitions having done a bit in service to the USA, and later in industry.... And as an amateur blacksmith, I know a little about the behavior of steel.
A lot of his assertions make sense...
But... you don't have to reach 5,000 degrees for steel to lose its strength. It begins to be somewhat bendible at under 1000 degres, and becomes quite plastic at 1800. At 2500 it has the consistency of ''Silly Putty"'.
All you have to do is get a few major support beams to go plastic, get a little sideways stress on them, and weight of just a few floors above will bring the whole building down.... Straight down.
My hands are going numb tapping this in with a stylus on a PDA.... I'll add more later when I have a real keyboard to type oon....
Actually, not withstanding physicist Jones' idiotic opinion, the physics of the collapse is quite well understood... it is gravity. He is surprised the buildings fell into their "footprint" when that is not surprising at all. It would take coniderable force to move a non-stiff building away from its foot print any appreciable distance.
"Toppling" the buildings over would not work on buildings engineered and built like the WTC towers... his argument that it would be easier is bunk. The buildings are designed to withstand the force of gravity... straight down. They are also designed to withstand a certain amount of sheer forces horizontally because of wind... but the amount of energy needed to move the millions of tons of the tops of the 1500 foot towers so that they "Topple" like a domino is far beyond that needed to merely pancake the building. To pancake it, one merely has to apply sufficient force on ONE floor to overcome the structure and allow it to fall onto the next lower floor, which would exceed its design support structure, which then falls onto the next lower, and so on.
He finds it remarkable that a building falls in the amount of time gravity would accelerate it downward plus a few tenths of a seconds (no one was really timing the complete fall from ESTIMATED onset to ESTIMATED conclusion) to accurately time it to one-tenth of a second... the final seconds were obscured by dust and smoke... to give any credance to his objections. Once the first two floor have pancaked, the weight and forces on the subsequent floors would be overwhelming... and rapid failure would be expected. If you hit a nail with a hammer, you don't expect the nail to wait a while before sinking into the wood.
And, it is not new. The claim of pre-placed explosives has been promulgated by those who want it to be the act of either Zionists (the canard that all Jews were warned not to enter the building that day despite the deaths of over 100 Jews in the collapse) or that it was the work of George Bush, who wanted to declare ware on Muslims.
"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."
Hmmmm... he doesn't go there after saying it probably wasn't Muslims despite all evidence to the contrary. Right. Sure.
• 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.
As a physicist, he ain't much of a chemist. Thermite is not an explosive... it is an incindiary. Aluminum Oxide and usually Iron Oxide (usually mixed in powdered form) in the presence of high temperatures can ignite to produce even higher temperatures. The WTC is composed of a lot of aluminum and a lot of iron... and no one is going to deny that there was high temperature present. In other words, Aluminum and Iron at high temperatures can combine to produce the thermite reaction. It would not be unexpected to find thermite residues in the WTC.
Ahhhh THAT is why his name is familiar. Steven Jones, of cold fusion infamy. Hahahahaha.
we just had a six year sleeper troll that just got banned for the same article posting it and not responding to questions.
You forget the "It was shot down by a mysterious white jet" theory...
The nut jobs who want the 911 events to be anything but terrorism will grasp at any straw flying in the wind.
Agreed
The prof is an idiot. Why did they need a diversion if they had explosives planted in the buildings... they could have merely waited until the buildings were full of infidels and pushed the button. BOOM! CRASH! Everybody dead. No need for 19 suicide hijackers wasted, no need for months or years of pilot lessons, mission accomplished with minimal loss of Muslim assets.... assets that could be used to do it again.
This idiot ignores scientific logic while he says everyone else is using "junk science."
Don't feel insulted.
I was posting that Amazon.com book review style ie: If you enjoy reading this; then you will also enjoy reading etc.
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.