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.
Either you a writing tasteless satire, or you are daring the Admin Moderators to ZOT you.
Smiling...you're welcome.
Got me...I cannot understand why someone would hold an account that long just to post something... must have wanted to go out in a blaze of glory.
The esteemed professor says "molten metal" found at the base of the WTC towers... molten metal is kind of generic... but the curtain wall of the building had a lot of aluminum in it... Aluminum melts at only 933º F and it would puddle. I think I remember reading something about melted aluminum... I have not read anything about "vaporized" steel which would take a LOT more heat than a chemical explosive would be likely to produce.
OK, on a real computer now....
But it looks like I don't have to type out a long treatise anyway, as this has already been pretty much debunked, and long before I became a FReeper the theories of the collapse well discussed.
The 'perfessor' has done a pretty good job of propaganda here though. He must have minored in political science, rather than engineering or something useful. I'll admit that coming from sensible, fairly conservative institution added a bit of credibility to him. The more I think about it, the more wrong and the more obvious he is though. Unfortunately, the general public will not have the analytic bent of most FReepers, so this will just add more fuel to the conspiracy nut's fires.
Now, I have always felt that the OKC bombing had demolition charges placed on some of the front structural members. So, I guess I might be added to the conspiracy nut list concerning that... Nonetheless, From the very first video shown by the news helicopters of the building, I said; 'No way was all that structural damage done by an air blast.... Even if the U-haul was placed right against the building damage would have unlikely to have done all of that." Then all of the later developments have only reinforced my first opinions.
But yeah, in this case, the 'perfesser' has a political agenda, not a scientific one.
Relax, guys. He got this information from stones
in a hat.
So, even if there were explosives planted in the buildings before the planes crashed, he goes on to assume they weren't planted by Muslims? He'd rather assume they were planted by Bush to cause a war in Iraq? Although he doesn't want to say it, he knows the conspiracy kooks will connect the dots.
Liberal pointy heads are such idiots.
Only for complete knuckleheads who want to believe anything but the obvious due to personal problems.
The collapse of the building cause a huge amount of potential energy to be converted into sound, vibration, wind, and HEAT. Indeed, the gravitational energy that was released when each of the towers fell was comparable to the energy in a small nuclear bomb. Although the energy was released over a period of seconds rather than microseconds, it should still hardly be surprising if it was sufficient in some places to vaporize steel.
To view it another way, the amount of energy that would have been converted into heat by the collapse of the structures dwarfs any plausible conventional bomb that might have placed therein.
Just one more thing... Concerning the vaporized metal... Yeah, that is way too generic a statement. I can think of quite a few explanations for the finding of such material, the least of which is explosives.
I'd have to have seen and analyzed it for myself before I would be willing to say that it was anything but residue from cutting / plasma torches or abrasive cutting wheels (which also produce the appearance of vaporized steel) from the people trying to look for survivors, or indeed, even residue from the original construction.
Mad Ivan said this on the other post about this hallucinatory discussion...... I agree with him.
Really, someone should beat you with an iron bar for peddling this paranoid rubbish, as it exploits the honoured dead.
Ivan
If you had said the same post to me twice, in person, I would have punched you so hard in the face that you would be screaming for your mother to help you find the remnants of your nose and teeth. Stop urinating on the dead with unadulterated poppycock such as this.
Ivan
Oops, I'm repeating myself! :)
Regards, Ivan
It was a MIRACLE. Call me a kook. I don't care. I believe that angels kept those buildings from falling OVER instead of DOWN.
I remember thinking it when I saw them going down. I remember thinking that God had sent angels to keep them from going OVER, saving thousands more lives.
I BELIEVE it was a miracle!
I'm not laughing. I don't know anything about explosives so whether the bad guys also planted bombs is something the experts will have to figure out. This article IMO is not about this though but about blaming someone else. Who? You don't just sleep for 6 years and come out with a "hi guys". He/she was brought out for a reason.
It's time to shut down this journal. Somebody's got to make a list of these crackpot journals. (BTW, I'll bet it's not a real physics journal.)
Now, of course, the guy conveniently sidesteps motivation, but this is EXACTLY the same thing as Farrakhan's conspiracy mongering. Why would somebody have bombs ready in the exact building just hoping, hoping that some Muslims would drive one plane into each building. How long ago were they planted? How did they know the Muslims would plan this? How did they know the pilots would hit the target?
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.