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.
You were just so succinct and emphatic. I like your style!
Such as the entire left... well I'd pretty much have to agree.
It amazed me at the time how the Ryder truck kept growing in response to the Amonium Nitrate/Fuel Oil explosion critics... even though they knew the make and model of the truck. I agree with you... makes me a "conspiracy nut" too.
Thanks! :-)
If they were gonna blow them up with explosives, why did they bother with planes?
Pleasure - feel free to steal it anytime!
Whether there were bombs too or not IMO the planes were for us to watch in horror what was happening. They knew one would be explained away. They choose a time and day for the media to catch it all.
There weren't any bombs. It's preposterous.
I don't know. It is possible that the group that were responsible for the planes could have planted bombs too. Whether they did or not....Our experts had nothing to lose by telling us and decided it didn't happen. IMO, What's preposterous is this guy trying to start a conspiracy that someone else was responsible and I guess we can all figure where they want this to go. Why else would a 6 year sleeper be woke?
I don't think every crazy idea is worth entertaining...
I'm sorry I gave it the time I have already :~D Nothing personal....
I understand and you don't need to respond and I won't post to you again about this. To me this issue isn't about bombs though, but trying to shift the blame.
Well, isn't that the same physics department that "discovered" "cold fusion"?
Let's start with this statement.
How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?"
Try a basic physics equation to answer that one.
It was a pancake collapse and as each floor in turn gave way, the mass continually increased. As the mass increased, the energy increased and the velocity also increased. He might also study some engineering and understand the difference between curtain wall construction and conventional box beam construction. The floor below did not hold up the floor above. The walls held each floor independently and each floor was designed to only support it's own weight not the weight of the floor above. There were absolutely no heavy horizontal beams in the WTC. Each floor was supported entirely by the curtain wall and the inner core columns. That's the only way the building could be that high and still have open floors all the way to the top.
Or this one.
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.
Total BS. Those buildings were full of furniture, carpeting, and plastics of all sorts, not just paper & steel. Once a flash-over occurs, i.e. the fumes emitted by so-called "nonflammable" hydrocarbon materials that reach combustible concentrations, temperatures easily reach 5000 F. He should have a conversation with his local fire department to find out just how hot fires can get.
Here's another one.
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.
Has he never see images of an airplane crash. The fire can burn for hours! And if an office fire will burn itself out in 20 minutes, why in the hell does it take fire departments hours to extinguish them?
I remember years ago seeing the results of a paint warehouse fire. The warehouse was directly under a rather large bridge with steel beams as large or larger than anything in the WTC. All that burned was paint but those bridge beams, and the warehouse beams, were twisted like pretzels and the concrete bridge deck had turned to powder.
The only thing I hate more than guys like this are the idiot reporters who are ignorant enough to report nonsense like this without challenge. We need a law that J-school dopes need at least a few courses in the sciences so they may at least not swallow crap like this without asking even one question.
I agree with everything, except that KE = 1/2 MV² :)
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.