BYU Professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC

Deseret News ^ | November 10, 2005 | E. Jarvik

[Paradox]

Funny, it seems there may be SOMETHING that the good physicist believes that many Freepers might agree with. Check THIS out.

[Welsh Rabbit]

What's his DU name?

[svcw]

My husband who is an engineer and a pilot said the planes could bring down the buildings. He explained it to me in detail, I did not understand the details but understood the concept.
He actually thought the point of target of the planes into the buildings was brilliant then he read something that said the thugs thought the buildings would topple like dominoes by where they hit.

[dead]

Yeah, kookoo freepers.

[Dave S]

I saw E-Ring last Wednesday for the first and last time. They made the Christians to look like the bad guy, the terrorist in the show E-Ring... and I recent how they made the Christians look in that show .

And if you had watched the other ten episodes or whatever you would have seen the hero kill muslim terrorists week after week. Well I will give you this, you actually watched one episode. Most of the people that complain about certain programs on TV have never watched a single episode but that doesnt keep them from blabbing for hours about the bias and anti-Christian, anti-Americanism of it all.

[Restorer]

"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?"

The good professor lost me here. There was never any way that the buildings would "topple." They weren't assembled in a way that made that even possible. That he doesn't know this just goes to show that he is an idiot. With degrees, no doubt, but still an idiot.

I know a prof at BYU in an unrelated field. I'm going to ask him his opinion of this guy.

[showme_the_Glory]

The first try at the New Orleans levees missed and hit the twin towers. That Bush in a bad mother, shut your mouth, I'm talkin bout Bush........

[Iconoclast2]

What about WTC7? No planes, no reported problems with insulation . . .

[Iconoclast2]

So do you think the fuel tanks spontaneously blew up, that hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw a missile track were wrong, and the Clinton's presentation of a CIA generated animation on national television to explain the incident was just the plain truth?

[Iconoclast2]

Is there any source for the claim that a whole lot of stuff fell on top of WTC7? I have never seen a rooftop view, but there is probably one out there.

[Deguello]

"...are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor."

TCU beat his team. Let him explain that away with physics.

Que the song: Get Over It.

[Andyman]

They made a series of TV shows about this guy's theories. IIRC, they were called "Looney Tunes."

[dead]

I don't know of any images of the roof of WTC, but I remember the fires burning in there through much of the day. (I remember noticing it specifically, because my sister-in-law worked in that building and we had not heard from her for much of the day.)

Enough debris hit the building to cut visible slashes in the exterior of the building and start the fires burning. Those fires burned pretty much uninterrupted for a few hours, due to the fact that the FDNY was otherwise occupied at that point, being either dead, missing or searching for those who were.

In addition to the visible damage to the exterior of the building, they were undoubtedly further structurally damaged just by the hellish forces unleased by the collapse of the two 110 story towers that crumbled all around them.

There were also 4 tanks of diesel fuel (containing a total of 36,000 gallons of fuel) in WTC7 for the mayor's emergency command center. Some think that fuel also contributed to the damage the fire did prior to collapse.

[dead]

I don't know of any images of the roof of WTC

should read: "I don't know of any images of the roof of WTC7"

[Fair Go]

And pigs fly!

[RightWhale]

The tall buildings would not topple. The would collapse straight down. They were not built with the tensile strength required to hold together while toppling.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Actually, after reading the reviews of that show E-Ring, and heard that it MIGHT ? be leaning more conservative, I was looking forward of watching it, but, haven't seen it until last Wednesday.
After watching ( Category 7 - The end of Days ) and seeing how they portrayed Christians in that sorry liberal propaganda movie, then seeing how they portrayer Christians in this weeks E - RING I see it as more MSM Liberal propaganda war on Christians.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I didn't say that...

What I am saying is ? I agree with you..
Maybe I should have used a ( SARCASM ) line at the end of my post.
I don't believe the official Clinton Administration theory on what happened to TWA flight - 800.
I just want to make sure we are agreeing on the same thing, I don't think the official word on that was true, and I believe those eyewitnesses more than what the Clintons wanted us to believe.
There is a whole cover up tied into TWA flight - 800 and Able Danger.....

[caseinpoint]

Actually, I don't believe BYU grants tenure, at least in the classical sense. The long-time professors get more patience but nutty professors can and do get canned there.

[supercat]

The tall buildings would not topple. The would collapse straight down. They were not built with the tensile strength required to hold together while toppling.

Suppose that someone used an XRQ-47 Space Modulator (or whatever Bugs' nemesis Marvin has) to instantaneously dissolve a 100'x220'x120' section of the base of the building (i.e. ten floors worth of half the footprint). I would think the building would have collapsed somehow, and I don't think that everything would just flex downward because the walls are quire resistant to shear (unusually so, and it was such resistance to shear forces that allowed the buildings to stand as long as they did). My guess would be that the structure would fracture in the middle, the way tall chimneys do when dynamited. So not a 'full' topple, but not a clean straight-down descent either.