Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BYU Professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Deseret News ^ | November 10, 2005 | E. Jarvik

Posted on 11/18/2005 11:40:33 AM PST by Iconoclast2

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.

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.


TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: 911; 911conspiracy; academia; byu; oldiebutgoodie; terrorism; tinfoil; wtc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last
To: Iconoclast2
Funny, it seems there may be SOMETHING that the good physicist believes that many Freepers might agree with. Check THIS out.
41 posted on 11/18/2005 12:40:21 PM PST by Paradox (Just because we are not perfect, does not mean we are not good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2

What's his DU name?


42 posted on 11/18/2005 12:48:06 PM PST by Welsh Rabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
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.
43 posted on 11/18/2005 12:53:03 PM PST by svcw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

Yeah, kookoo freepers.


44 posted on 11/18/2005 12:53:08 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
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.

45 posted on 11/18/2005 12:55:00 PM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
"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.

46 posted on 11/18/2005 1:03:26 PM PST by Restorer (Illegitimati non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2

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........


47 posted on 11/18/2005 1:14:52 PM PST by showme_the_Glory (No more rhyming, and I mean it! ..Anybody got a peanut.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

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


48 posted on 11/18/2005 1:31:21 PM PST by Iconoclast2 (Two wings of the same bird of prey . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

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?


49 posted on 11/18/2005 1:35:15 PM PST by Iconoclast2 (Two wings of the same bird of prey . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dead

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.


50 posted on 11/18/2005 1:36:58 PM PST by Iconoclast2 (Two wings of the same bird of prey . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
"...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.

51 posted on 11/18/2005 1:44:26 PM PST by Deguello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2

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


52 posted on 11/18/2005 1:54:20 PM PST by Andyman (Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
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.

53 posted on 11/18/2005 2:17:25 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 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"

54 posted on 11/18/2005 2:19:08 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2

And pigs fly!


55 posted on 11/18/2005 3:00:59 PM PST by Fair Go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2

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.


56 posted on 11/18/2005 3:04:50 PM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
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.
57 posted on 11/18/2005 3:14:26 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
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.....
58 posted on 11/18/2005 3:21:33 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: js1138

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.


59 posted on 11/18/2005 3:23:39 PM PST by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

60 posted on 11/18/2005 3:30:28 PM PST by supercat (Sony delinda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson