Professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC — I thought the early discussions shortly after the WTC collapse were credible and kind of still think so. BUT none of it explained the collapse of WTC7 which was not hit by a plane. Why did it fall exactly as if it had been rigged for demolition? This topic should be hot for a while.
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.
found by Mad Dog Mike
related links:
Conspiracy thoughts
Considering that he also have found evidence for Christ’s Visit in America, I would say that everything is connected … ;^)
Article link should be http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
And in other news, we did not really land on the moon, blue is really green, JFK was killed by the CIA, the Mofia, ect, please why must some find conspiracy in everything.
Because we’re not all media peons who believe whatever CNN and Fox News tell us. Some of us like to examine all angles of a situation. This is exactly why the Bush Corporation and other administrations like it get away with what they do; because of people who are too content or unwilling to question what is told to them.
This is one of the guys who discovered cold fusion too.
It would seem simple; if the WTCs started their collapse where the fire was, then it almost certainly wasn’t explosive, which would have gone off earlier in the fire. And if the collapse started elsewhere, it would be unlikely to have been caused by the fire. Sheesh.
Although it is wise to look at all possibilities, I still have to wonder what the point of destroying this building 7 hours after it was evacuated? Who had offices in this building? Who would gain by any one of these occupants having their office destroyed?
I don’t think this is going to be hot, *ever*… Most people saw those planes hit the towers, they were fully loaded with fuel, all of it exploded or burnt at very high temperatures, the steel structure of those floors weakened or melted, and down it came… The explanation seems kind of logic. I can’t talk about WTC7 as I haven’t seen it in detail (I’m in Portugal), so I don’t really know what you mean. But who would want to bring the towers down? Imagine if they hadn’t fallen? Wouldn’t 9/11 still be a horrendous memory for the entire planet? No need to bring buildings down, that day really seemed out of a bad sci-fi movie anyway…
Now, if we talk about the Pentagon, many people here in Europe think that story hasn’t been well told… I, for one, don’t believe a 767 could fly for miles just a few meters above the ground, especially if piloted by a rookie pilot who knew he was running to his death… Naaah… That one doesn’t convince me…. Just try it on a Flight Simulator… Even witha simple flight model is pretty much impossible…
Almost certainly more people would have survived if the towers hadn’t fallen.
Even still, its not like the towers falling was unexplained. The way those towers were designed, there was no way they WOULDN’T have fallen.
I can buy thqt the Administration shot down the 4th plane, or that the Chinese embassy was bombed on purpose, but what’s the point of blowing up the towers at that time?
gquaglia must have an antenna attached to his small brain that beams Fox news in & causes him to spew stupid opinions. And, I might add, what evidence does this dunce have that disproves the “conspiracy nuts?” None, as he & others of their Rush Limbaugh-like ilk are just putting out Cliff Claven facts.
The investigation of 9-11 costs $10 million. The wreckage was junked & shipped to China before anyone could even test it. But, to stupid people, nothing’s ever fishy. Just believe what the government tells you because governments don’t lie, they have your best interest at heart.
gquaglia, did you hear the moon’s made of cheese also & a cow jumped over it?
& o Miguel Lopez, you’re not an engineed. So how does it all seem logical? To an engineer, the whole story’s impossible. Coverup of what really happened, just like the phony Warren Commission.
Let’s see… the buildings are hit by airplanes… and the collapse starts where the building was hit. So much for the theory of pre-rigged explosives. The fact is that the floors were ‘balanced’ around a central support, and when the light supports that held the builing in balance failed, the hole thing crashed over at that point.
If you look at the 911 tapes, it is obvious that the top of the first tower to collapse tilts over before starting it’s straight down fall. The buildings fell straight down below the point of airplane impact, but fell over above the point of impact. And a small tilt at that point, when carried over many floors of height, means that the lateral displacement of the falling pieces made them fall on-top of the adjascent buildings.
Want evidence? The first google result of “aerial view wtc” shows these photos:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzheli1.html
Now you try dropping 20 stories of a building on top of another building and see how well the building below does.
Why this crackpot is given any publicity or credibility is beyond me. This is a ‘professor’… yeah, just like Michael “Moron Nation” Savage is a ‘Doctor’ and hence is entitled to credibility, no matter how deluded and irrational they may be.
I find it tedious when folks who have little idea about the actual data start to pontificate about 911, deriding those who think it was MIHOP (make it happen on purpose) event. I am not a physicist but I am a neuroscientist and clinical neuropsychologist. Am a skeptic by nature and trained in the philosophy of science when I was a grad. student in philosophy. So big deal. But the evidence for a prima facie case against BushCo is overwhelming. And many, many folks in the US are now of similar belief. Those who have looked at the data carefully. I certainly agree with the physicist. And you don’t have to be a physicist to understand. Simply having an open mind and a willingness to examine the arguments and data fully should suffice.
For those who wonder what the purpose might have been….. think ‘galvanize the US populace into supporting extreme military budget and build-up, and to support attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, ultimately the middle east in its entirety, then global hegemony. You can read all about it in the documents written by the think tank, Project for the New American Century. A think tank founded by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bennet, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Geb Bush, Perle etc. The wrote precisely what they planned to do. And they have been following that plan step by step. If, and that is a big ‘if’ you have the wit and willingness to do the research, the conclusion of MIHOP is patently evident.
Plus…. the guy who had just taken out the lease on the WTC just a bit prior to 9/11, and had taken out a big insurance policy(ies) and who said on a PBS special that he ok’d ‘pulling’ building 7 and who knew that the WTC building required a renovation including the removal of a bunch of aspestos….. well I am sure he didn’t mind their destruction…
Ho hum. This old chestnut again.
So, if the towers were rigged with explosives then why did no one notice the workmen wandering around the buildings drilling holes in the structure to place said explosives? That would have taken a couple of weeks and would hardly go unnoticed.
Why did no one happen to spot the many miles of ignitor cord which would be need to set these explosives off?
Why does the video footage of the collapse show none of the secondary explosions you would see in such a scenario?
a look at http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=wtc7+demolition+silverstein&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 might help — although i surely cant tell whether this rumour is true, the story all these sites tell is that wtc7 was deliberately brought down.
Well for once I find myself in total agreement with AB CD and gquaglia.
There is no evidence that the WTC buildings were wired with explosives. There is no evidence that the twin towers fell in any way other then expected. There is no evidence that the lessor was complicit in the WTC destruction. Look, I don’t like dubya either and truly believe he purposely misled us on Iraq. Until there is anything to disprove the apparent, and accepted, cause of the Twin Towers collapse then conspiracy theorists are plain wrong.
The buildings were built around a central core. When the support structures finally reached there elastic point and started to move, the stress was shifted all to the remaining supports causing them to fail. This created a chain reaction until the whole floor ended up up falling down onto the floor beneath it. This chain reaction then caused each floor to fail as the above floor hit it. As each floor failed, the resulting fall would hit the center support like a pile driver. This repeated hammering effect caused extreme vibrations inside the building and to the nearby buildings. Many people reported feeling the massive rumbling vibration and conspirator theorists have reported this as bombs going off.
They also point out that each floor would have the windows blow out as it collapsed. This was caused by the above floor displacing the air as it caved in. As the air had to go some place, it went out the easiest way; through the breaking and broken windows.
When the lessor told the fire chief to “Pull the Building”, he was only telling the Fire Department to pull their men from WTC 7. This standard code to evacuate a building, known to every fireman. He was aware that the building was too severely damaged and also in danger of collapse.
Because the Pentagon is much more secretive about its building, I don’t know much about any conspiracy there. And as much as I believe Bush, Cheney, Tenet, and Rumsfeld are war mongers, I don’t believe they would purposely destroy so much property of those who supported his election bid. It has also been reported that Rumsfeld was close to being fired before 9/11 due to his abrasive nature at the Defense Department. It was his reaction to 9/11 that saved him from being fired.
Show me the evidence please. Something credible.
I’ve been hearing engineers going both ways on this topic Probably one of those things that will be debated endlessly without ever reaching a firm conclusion for anyone but people on the extremes.
I’d be interesting to do a little research and see if similar conspiracy theories were advanced about U.S. Government involvement after the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine (Spanish-American War), the torpedoing of the Lusitania (WWI), the bombing of Pearl Harbor (WWII), etc. since it typically seems to be a singular “attack” by an outside agitator that pushes the U.S. into a war. Could just be that the current administration was pursuing a hidden American tradition of war-starting. Wouldn’t that be fun?
I don’t know for sure but the way I have always looked at history is to follow the money. All of these things are possible. It is also possible for someone to kill or allow to be killed over 3000 innocent people in order to make a quarter of a trillion (with a T) dollars over four years. Eh… However… you nor I or whoever else will ever read this comment can do nothing about it. Whatever way it went down. So keep your eyes forward, keep showing up at work and try not to get killed.
Thing is, there’s no way there’s some huge government conspiracy about 9/11 because the US government has a track record of being too incompetent to stage massive cover-ups.
Want proof? Look no further than Watergate. The Nixon White House couldn’t cover up something as simple as a break-in at a hotel, so what makes people believe that the government can execute the most dramatic event in our time without someone blabbing about it? An operation like 9/11 would require vast coordination throughout the bureaucracy of the government to stage, involving many politicians, military officials, intelligence personnel, and private contractors. Is it too unreasonable to think that with all the people involved, that somebody would have squealed about it by now?
Of course, Major League Baseball could have arranged for the elimination of all the conspirators.
So Dr. Jones’ expertise in cold fusion now makes him an expert in demolition? Perhaps he has an undergraduate degree in architectural or structural engineering? And GregAllen is correct, it takes weeks to set demolition charges. Not to mention that those same charges are set on the lower floors AND they leave behind residue as evidence.
There is no escaping fools! More proof that a PhD is no guarantee of intelligence. And he actually had the nerve to submit this “paper” for peer review — no data, merely speculation. Who are his “peers,” the Montana Militiamen and Michael Moore?
John you are getting crazier and crazier every post you make. I love your work when you talk about computers and technology but I’m starting to lose interest in anything else you say.
Everything’s all roses for the majority in this group who take what Fox, CNN, and BBC say as gospel truth. Expand your horizons and click on those links. You might discover that you really do not deserve being high up on that pedestal you placed yourself on.
Thank you Parallax Abstraction for your comment (#4).
This country is in desperate need of just the kind of balanced, open-mindedness you describe, as a lot of the other posts here show.
It’s fairly revolting to witness such a crew of lockstep, close-minded, ad hominem spouting fools as the bulk of the posters on this topic.
The points raised by Professor Jones seem valid and deserve a hearing. What is it you people fear about open discourse on this subject?
If you are correct, he will be ridiculed and marginalized. So what’s the beef?
And what’s this about John “getting crazier and crazier”? He’s the messenger, not the author. This blog is one of the best for flat out variety of content, and, yes, for oddball stuff too.
Remember, brain-eating zombies, the site is named Dvorak Uncensored, not the 10 O’ Clock Happy News. And you know where the door is.
The most annoying thing about all this is that it appears that none of the folks who are disputing Prof. Jones’s account appear to have actually read his piece.
Have a look here:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
The problem with the paper is that it promotes that the twin towers were brought down by pre-positioned explosives, not just WTC-7. That is just plain ludicrous and disjointed from real facts.
There is a whole following that says that one of the airplanes that hit the towers was equipped with some mysterious pods, and that the airplane actually fired a missle into the building about 1/2 second before hitting it. Then there are the claims of two people being alerted via instant messaging a couple of hours before the attacks. Or that the hijackers were identified as carousing in strip joints the night before. Or that the fire on the first tower was limited to two small areas that could be put out with a single hose. All of these have statements have been repeatedly proven utter nonsense, yet people still state them as truths, either by ignorance or by agenda.
You look at any WWII film about the damage caused to buildings by fire, and you will see that they all fell basically straight down due to the fire burning inside the building, with the remaining lower walls eventually collapsing either inwards or outwards.
Think abnout it for a second… how can you actually get a building to topple on it’s side? It’s actually quite difficult to move a mass like that laterally, since as soon as it looses vertcal support, it is going to tend to collapse straight down. The WTC buildings did exactly that… the building started going sideways at the break, and almost immediately lost suport and went straight down. Controlled demolitions go through quite a bit of effort just to get a building to fall in a general direction, but the building almost always falls right on top of itself.
The exception to the vertical collapse rule is earthquakes, and that is because the whole building is moving out from under itself, with harmonic oscillation moving the top of the building in opposite direction… but in a standard collapse, it is always vertical. Buildings are not trees, they are decks of cards held together by bolts.
Occam’s Razor applies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_RazorPluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [Latin]
or
Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
(and less paranoid).
Before 9-11, there have been many high rises gutted by flames, never did one EVER collapse yet on that day 3 did.
Believe waht you want about 1 and 2 but no way does WTC7 fall because of fire.
FIrst of all, WTC was surrounded by buildings that received almost no damage, it didnt receive tons of garbage like the twit claims above, it wasnt located on the same block as 1 and 2 but across the street.
I received just as much debris as teh bulidings to teh right and left of it .The fires were localized and at the corners of the building, barely noticeable, this was NOT a raging inferno by the firemen’s own report *actaully the firemen also said on tape that the fires in teh two towers were under control but thats another story.* and again, no building has ever fallen down because of fire.
Most importantly, WTC7 was a building that was reinforced to serve as Giuliani’s command post in case of emergency, so it was even more solid than the VErizon building and other offices right next to it.
but then again, that was a day where an amazing series of failures happened in succession, so i guess why not believe another one.
Lots of stories like the one of Rodriguez the janitor who along with a dozen people heard an explosion in the basement neevr got told because they didnt fit the storyline.
As for loss of life, do you remember teh marketplace massacres in Bosnia a few years ago? They both happened around important UN votes and helped mold the public storyline. It didnt matter that the french president at th time admitted to a magazine that the muslims bombed tehir own people (with 10s of thousands of muhajeddins) to get support, it was considered part of war.) Casualties are a part of war and teh US has a long history of creating or allowing incidents to further their agenda, so skepticism is demanded.
3,000 lives lost allowed the US free reign at home and abroad
and seen from a pragmatic view was a very good investment if it was planned. Most of the neo-con groups openly talked about needing another Pearl Harbour to galvanize public opinion and they got it.
Does it mean they did it? Not necessarily but when part of your plan demands something of this magnitude and you get it, you SHOULD be a suspect.
Awake, you are an idiot:
‘Controlled demolitions go through quite a bit of effort just to get a building to fall in a general direction, but the building almost always falls right on top of itself.’
Hard for me to believe that a government that couldn’t even plant WMD in Iraq when they needed to, and couldn’t manage to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden when they were practically on top of him at Tora-Bora, could somehow manage to plant explosives around buildings with 40,000 residents and have them precision timed to go off at just a certain time. This is not even covering the fact that they somehow managed to coordinate the conspiracy with all the families of those who died on the planes.
C’mon folks. We’re talking the Bush administration here…
JoAnn
You guys are as disappointing as Michael Moore. If you want to engage in conspiracy theories, at least try to make them reasonable. That was all I asked, and you couldn’t do it, so I’ll try and help you get started. First of all planes did hit the building, so you have to account for that, or explain that it didn’t happen. You’ve given a motivation of excuse for war, but you have to explain the implementation. How’s this for a theory: after the planes hit, the ‘war council’ saw the political benefits and blew up the buildings. But how did they do it so quickly with noone noticing? And what’s the point of blowing up a side evacuated building? For that matter, the death toll at that point should have been enough to galvanize for war without blowing up any buildings. So how about this: They knew the plot ahead of time, and let it happen so they could reap the benefits. The CIA was informed in July of a major attack on Sept 11, and the method had been written and read, plus similar plans had been uncovered in the Phillippines, and possibly also in New York(TWA 800). So they knew the plot, let it happen, then blew up the building themselves with preplanned explosives(setting them off from the point of impact, and then on down), coordinated from Giuliani’s command and control bunker in WTC7, which was blown up to cover their tracks. Perhaps the White House/Congress attack plane was shot down, or they arranged for Todd Beamer and co. to be on the plane, just waiting for a cell phone call from people telling them what had happened to the World Trade Center. Perhaps they also arranged for the missing hijacker. Of course, it would have been better to let them evacuate the necessary people, but maybe there was too much risk involved, whereas at the Pentagon they could manage because of the structure. There is still the problem that there is no need to blow up the buildings, since 4 planes worth of cross continent flights is still 1000 people, and plenty to cause a war, but I think it’s a good start for a reasonable conspiracy theory. Earlier I compared you to Michael Moore. Well if you believe Fahrenheit 9/11 is plausible, then it means you accept that this grand conspiracy was all done so Texaco could build an oil pipeline in Afghanistan.
Of course wiring the WTC with explosives would require extensive access to the inner-areas of the buildings. Without this access, wiring the building with explosives would be impossible, right? Well, here’s a fact taken from Barbara Bush’s newest book, President GW Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, was head of the security company in charge of providing security for the WTC complex. He conveniently retired his position on Sept. 11, 2001. Also, employees of the WTC reported being evacuated for a “drill” weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks. Moreover, there are few workers in the buildings at night, those were all office buildings, it would be easy for a group of demolition experts to plant explosives at night, assuming they had help from security.