Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC

[number6]

By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News
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.
Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News"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.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html


In the Deseret News !!! hurry and look before it goes down
the Memory Hole

[philb]

1. Firemen and policemen statements support his analysis

http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
http://www.flcv.com/nypolice.html

[OKthatsIT]

321. INDICT LARRY SILVERSTEIN!

and MARVIN BUSH!

The asbestos workers were working behind the scenes within the bldg for weeks prior to the WTC destruction.

"PULL IT, LARRY!"

[Not Sure]

322. I think I have read something about this

on Mike Malloy's site. The video of the squibs pretty much shocked the crap out of me. I couldn't believe I never noticed it before.

[Kevin Fenton]

2. Good catch

I think we can all agree to this:
"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."
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

I wonder what sort of tests he'd like to do on the small sample of molten metal?

And he absolutely nails one of the main problems in the NIST report:
"The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on 9-11-01, are less than convincing. The Final report states:

"The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

"The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘we must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:

"The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports , the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

"The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

"How fun to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)"
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The paper is well worth reading.

[MrSammo1]

4. All he needs

is a sample of the dust.
He'll find the smoking gun there!

[MrSammo1]

3. Good one!

Professionals are the key in busting the 911 lies wide open!

[AZCat]

5. This thread (link below) discusses the professor and his theories...

Spooked911 brought this to the attention of the forum a couple of months ago and we had an interesting thread about it. The professor appears to now be a member of DU, although to what extent he plans on using his account to update us I don't know.

Physics Professor Thinks the WTCs Were Cases of Controlled Demolition
Thread begun by spooked911 on Thursday, September 15, 20005

[MrSammo1]

303. I remember the link

I tried to get a few internet shows to get this guy on.

[sabbat hunter]

6. bad link

your link to the byu.edu site is bad. page not found error.


peace

[Kevin Fenton]

7. Delete fullstop

You just have to delete the fullstop at the end.
This should work:
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[QuettaKid]

8. BYU Physics Professor: Let's take another look at those WTC

tower collapses. Excellent article. Good introduction for the MIHOP newcomers.

""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."""

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C635160132%2C00.html

[wallwriter]

9. This is the new Kenedy Assassination...

No matter how compelling the alternative evidence is, dissenters will always be labeled freaks...

[QuettaKid]

10. exactly.....

people just cannot wrap their minds around the idea that thier OWN government would undertake such a horrific act. Then again, I bet most people wouldn't have believed that the Vice-President would knowingly out a covert CIA agent....

[mattclearing]

11. Or invade a country simply because they wanted to. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

124. I think most people are starting to believe that one though

I think if more people think and question about invading Iraq than they'll be wondering why and look into it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. You are right..I can't get around that concept

But there are other issues I wonder about, too. Like the planes. There defnitely WERE planes; so then we'd have to assume we were in cahoots with Al Queda? Why would Al Queda want GWB to have succees in his administration? They didn't need money, Bin Laden is millionaire. That seem implausible to me...also the act of putting all those explosives together. Wouldn't someone..a janitor...superintendent..have seen it? And the numbers that would have to be involved ..surely someone would have talked by now?

Also, the pilots took the flying lessons during the Clinton administration and I will NEVER believe Bill was involved in it. Could BushCo really have put this all together in such a short time?

Those are some of my questions.

Also, we know that Bushco did benefit from a hike in approval, but really what else did they get? Yeah, indirectly the country's approval in war and business for Halliburton, I understand that. But that level of murder is usually done for religious or ideological zealotry and not nebulous political gain.

I just have a hard time connecting the dots. But I'm interested in hearing from the folks who think it was a MIHOP and how they connect the dots.

[jsamuel]

22. If you do more research, you will see peoples answers for those things

for example, some have shown that the planes may not have been the planes we think they were. They say that the size of the planes (wing to wing VS head to tail ratio) is that of the military equivalent of the planes that were supposed to hit the towers from the airlines.

But that just brings up more questions.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

36. We have film of the planes

do any of the theories recognize the plane bodies as military-type planes? And how would they get passengers on them? The passengers would just assume it was a regular Pan American flight?

It's a fascinating thing to theorize about.

[FreedomAngel82]

128. One of the best 9/11 sites

is http://www.reopen911.org

[Nordmadr]

26. My dots connect it because I personally see it as just one

piece of the pie. We should also not forget the apparent energy problem in the world, the Patriot Act civil rights roll-backs, the staggering economy and precarious housing market. Shit is falling apart. I think the government is preparing for things that have not seeped into the American psyche quite yet. Rome is burning.

Olaf

[pberq]

35. the political gain is far from nebulous, IMO

The whole "war on terror" is based on 9/11. The administration and its supporters continually bring up 9/11 as justification for their criminal actions.

If you are interested in checking out motives, see discussions on PNAC (DU research board), "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert (extensively documented with gov't docs and MSM articles), and David Ray Griffin's two books.

These resources also catalog the overwhelming evidence showing that the official conspiracy theory is nothing but a giant coverup.

[Extend a Hand]

59. One of the most compelling arguments to me

for government involvement is the fact that there have been NO subsequent successful terrorist attacks in our country since 9/11.

Our country is extremely vulnerable to all kinds of attack:

• We have millions of miles of above ground pipelines running through remote areas.
  
• Our borders are porous.
  
• An obscenely low percentage of shipping container we import are actually inspected
  
• Our food and water supplies are not guarded.
  

If terrorists are really wanted to strike on US soil, why haven't they?

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

125. Excellent point! Also the physical [photo] evidence at the Pentagon

does not come close to what one would expect when a 757 hits a concrete building at a 45 degree angle.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/

[Lerkfish]

133. no, the most compelling evidence of at least LIHOP is that the SS

did absolutely freakin nothing to protect the president. We were under attack. multiple planes attacking multiple targets. The president was in a scheduled, known location, with too many unsecured entry points (a school), and too many unvetted personnel (staff and media).

One plane had already hit BEFORE they went to the photo op.
The primary function for the Secret Service is to protect the president at all costs in a situation of threat. How much more of a threat did they need?

yet they calmly stood around while "my pet goat" was read. and even allowed the prez to shake hands and have pictures taken afterwards.

That either means the secret service was collosally incompetent (which I highly doubt), or were complicit in the LIHOP.

Remember back to 9/11? we, as citizens, had no clue as to how big or comprehensive the attack would be..we were jumping at shadows in Dayton when people heard a sonic boom. WE didn't know the attack was already over.

But the secret service did. How?

[ellenfl]

138. perhaps the secret service people with shrub were not advised

of the attacks immediately? do we know who reported the attacks to andy card? maybe his lack of concern was designed to mollify the ss.

ellen fl

[we can do it]

308. They were informed BEFORE they got out of the limos. n/t

[Extend a Hand]

140. yes, that doesn't make sense either.

I don't understand why these very legitimate questions are labeled conspiracy theories.

[hootinholler]

65. PNAC published the need for a new Pearl harbor in 2000...

This idea didn't appear from a vaccume. Notice how Poppy's M.O. keeps popping up: A VP and SecDef persue an illegal war. Poppy -N- Wineberger, or Cheney -N- Rummy? The latter learned their tradecraft at the elbows of the former.

This is meerely a new twist on an old play. I have no problem thinking they've been working on this for a few years.

-Hoot

[TallahasseeGrannie]

102. Do you think Clinton's people were in on it, too?

[hootinholler]

104. I don't think the neocons had to be in power to plan this.

Halliburton gave Cheney ample resources to persue it and be ready to reap what he sowed.

-Hoot

[FreedomAngel82]

130. I haven't seen any type of evidence

:shrug: Of course I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any type of evidence that Clinton was involved. He did warn Bush about BinLaden and his security advisor warned Condi.

[petgoat]

154. Clinton's people were in on it, too?

Clinton didn't necessarily know everything that was going on.

He ordered the CIA to kill bin Laden, but they farmed the job out to
Afghani tribesmen who lacked enthusiasm for the job.

Who sheltered Mohammed Atta from the Able Danger probe? Weldon says it
was Jamie Gorelick but that claim appears to be weak.

An FBI investigator after the 93 WTC bombings complained that the Blind
Sheikh seemed to have the protection of the INS and the State
Department--was this at the orders of Clinton? Or was the blind Sheikh
being protected by the CIA (apparently he'd come to NYC to raise money
and recruit for the anti-Soviet mujahideen in Afghanistan.)

[FreedomAngel82]

127. Saudi's and the Bush's are long time business partners and friends

Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi. So they could've been given money for their families or something like that. Who knows. If Hitler could do it than why couldn't Bush?

[petgoat]

149. Van Romero, a demolitions expert, said it would not take very many

explosive charges to bring the towers down. The MIT "zipper theory"
for the collapse implies the same thing. Many of the WTC tenants
warehoused product in their offices, which would provide opportunities
for smuggling explosives in. One needn't assume gov't complicity to
entertain the explosives hypothesis. Perhaps al Qaeda planted the
bombs, and the officials are covering it up to save Marvin Bush's
security company from embarrassment.

As to the flying lessons--it was under Bush that warnings from Colleen
Rowley at FBI Minneapolis and Ken Williams at FBI Phoenix about possible
terrorist fliers were ignored. It was under Bush that warnings from the
intelligence agencies of 11 foreign countries were ignored.

[Beam Me Up]

311. TallahasseeGrannie: May I recommend you watch David R. Griffin's

presentation given at the University of Wisconsin in April of this year. It is entitled: 9/11 and the American Empire; How Should Religious People Respond? By 'religious people' Dr. Griffin, a theologian, means people of ethical conscience regardless of their particular religion, if any. The film can be downloaded free from several web sites, such as here:
http://tinyurl.com/7sgd9

Better yet, visit http://www.mujca.com A better quality DVD with additional video footage highlighting points in the presentation can be had for a $20 donation. Or, you can private me and we can discuss other options.

A transcript can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/dpnx7

For people unfamiliar with the 9/11 Truth Movement, the evidence presented by Dr. Griffin in this talk given at the University of Wisconsin in April 2005 may come as quite a shock. Dr. Griffin argues persuasively that the United States is an Empire and not an altogether benevolent one. Moreover, he presents evidence which strongly suggests that some officials within the United States Government and military not only were aware that the specific attacks of 9/11 were forthcoming, but actively participated in carrying them out.

However, I have found that it helps if people are given just a little background information about the three individuals who, IF 9/11 was an "inside job" (a "black" covert operation perpetrated by elements within our own secret government, military and intelligence networks), would had to have known. These three individuals are: Vice President Richard Cheney; Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld and General Ralph E. Eberhart.

On the morning of 9/11 Vice President Richard Cheney was in the White House Situation Room and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon. This is commonly known. What is not so commonly known is that Cheney and Rumsfeld have been deeply immersed in the national security apparatus of the United States for most of their political careers. Here are a few excerpts from an article published in The Atlantic, March 2004, by James Mann, entitled "The Armagedon Plan":

Rumsfeld and Cheney were principal actors in one of the most highly classified programs of the Reagan Administration. Under it U.S. officials furtively carried out detailed planning exercises for keeping the federal government running during and after a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

/snip/

There things stood until September 11, 2001, when Cheney and Rumsfeld suddenly began to act out parts of a script they had rehearsed years before. Operating from the underground shelter beneath the White House, called the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, Cheney told Bush to delay a planned flight back from Florida to Washington. At the Pentagon, Rumsfeld instructed a reluctant Wolfowitz to get out of town to the safety of one of the underground bunkers, which had been built to survive nuclear attack. Cheney also ordered House Speaker Dennis Hastert, other congressional leaders, and several Cabinet members (including Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and Interior Secretary Gale Norton) evacuated to one of these secure facilities away from the capital. Explaining these actions a few days later, Cheney vaguely told NBC's Tim Russert, ÒWe did a lot of planning during the Cold War with respect to the possibility of a nuclear incident.Ó He did not mention the Reagan Administration program or the secret drills in which he and Rumsfeld had regularly practiced running the country.

The full article can be found here: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0318-14.htm

During the Regan Administration, Cheney and Rumsfeld were part of a plan to insure continuity of government even in the event of a catastrophic nuclear Òfirst strikeÓ against the United States. The Regan administration established a chain of succession and extremely secure chains of command and lines of communication within and between the military and governmentÑand placed Cheny and Rumsfeld at its head. Here they practiced Òfirst strikeÓ war game scenarios for many years. If there is a Òsecret governmentÓ in the United States, Cheney and Rumsfeld must be part of it.

As recently as October 25, 2005, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, wrote in an Los Angeles Times OP ED:

IN PRESIDENT BUSH'S first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security Ñ including vital decisions about postwar Iraq Ñ were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

When I first discussed this group in a speech last week at the New America Foundation in Washington, my comments caused a significant stir because I had been chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell between 2002 and 2005.

But it's absolutely true. I believe that the decisions of this cabal were sometimes made with the full and witting support of the president and sometimes with something less. More often than not, then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice was simply steamrolled by this cabal.

For more see: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wilkerson25oct25,0,7455395.story

So far as the third person who would had to have been involved if 9/11 was an "inside job"--on the morning of 9/11, General Ralph E. Eberhart was in command of North American Air Defense Command (NORAD). He was fully aware of the events unfolding and their relationship with secret war games being played out such as "Vigilent Guardian." According to a report in the New Jersey Star-Ledger (12/5/03), NORAD confirmed that "it was running two mock drills on Sept. 11 at various radar sites and Command Centers in the United States and Canada," one of these being Vigilant Guardian. For more information on this and other exercises being held on 9/11 see: US Military Holding ÔPractice ArmageddonÕ Nationwide Training Exercise on this web page:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a928vigilantwarrior

Immediately after 9/11 and in response to the perceived threat of international terrorism, the military forces of the North American Contenent (U.S., Canada and Mexico) were reorganized into NORTHCOM, with General Eberhart at its head. General Eberhart was also Commander, Air Force Space Command and Commander in Chief, U.S. Space Command. The significance of this will not be lost on careful listeners or readers of Dr. GriffinÕs presentation. Eberhart retired in July of 2005.

Evidence is becoming increasingly conclusive: There was a conspiracy of lies to lead the United States into war with Iraq and to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars from one segment of American society to another. Moreover, there is significant evidence that the events of 9/11 are the cornerstone of that conspiracy.

[Beam Me Up]

310. Yes. Of all the lies that lead to the war in Iraq, 9/11

is the most heinous.

The entire event was ORCHASTRATED. A quasi-military operation designed to terrorize our society into accepting the largest swindle in history: The transfer of hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars of wealth from one sector of society to another.

We've been totally screwed, not by Muslim fundamentalists but by unethical white men. Worse, they are STILL in control of our national security apparatus: All our lives are in danger.

[Spinzonner]

12. More BS

The planes simply didn't have the mass and momentum necessary to tip a building of that size to cause anything other than a vertical pancaking collapse. The same thing would happen with virtually any skyscraper of any significant size.

Where the hell would the energy come from to 'topple over' the building ? This requires displacing all that mass sideways to cause anything other than a collapse into their footprints.

[QuettaKid]

13. So I guess we should just

what, believe the media and the government? Just like the Pat Tillman story and the Jessica Lynch story and the (insert favorite pentagon lie story here.......) Throw out the science as presented by a man who is merely speculating in a peer reviewed paper?

[Loonman]

16. He didn't say that

Get a fucking grip.

[Arianrhod]

32. The paper addresses that issue.

If a building began collapsing from the top, it would encounter intact structures, which would not only slow its collapse, but would also redirect the pressures. This would create, not a "smooth" vertical collapse, but rather a "messy" crumpling into a heap.

It's also been well known right from the start that Building 7 was not even hit. So why did it collapse at all? That, more than anything else, is the question that troubles me.

That doesn't mean I subscribe to MIHOP or LIHOP. It's just that I've never believed the buildings collapsed solely due to the striking of the planes. Terrorists planted bombs in the WTC during the Clinton administration, so there's no reason why it couldn't have been done again.

[pberq]

37. The main point here is that we haven't been given an explanation

that makes sense for what happened. Even if you don't subscribe to MIHOP or LIHOP, you are right to expect a reasonable explanation for what happened.

See my post above for well-documented resources that uncover the many, many holes in the official conspiracy theory.

[TomNickell]

71. Yes, we have been given an explanation.

The structural engineers have studied the situation intensely.

There is no mystery.

Big airplane hit the building, a large fire weakened the structure and it collapsed.

Straight down, which is how gravity usually works.

[truebrit71]

118. Great! Thanks! Oh, which plane hit WTC 7?? I haven't seen that footage...

It too fell straight down, but WASN'T hit by a plane and DIDN'T have a large fire...so it fell because......????

[Qibing Zero]

152. Lies. There have been no comprehensive studies done on material evidence.

The first time a steel and concrete building has ever been taken down by a fire (some skyscrapers of the kind have been on fire for upwards of 20 hours!), three of them are taken down, and they do no research on the materials left behind whatsoever. Right.

We were given the official 'explanation' all quick-like, and it was left at that. These certain terrorists did what they did, we know it, and we're going after the ones who sent them to do it. End of story.

Even the fire engineers were upset:

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225



Now people are going to tell you that it was jet fuel, so it was hot enough to take the buildings down - and fast. Which of course explains why tower 2, which was hit 15 minutes after tower 1 and also much more indirectly, with a large fireball exploding OUTSIDE the building (expending a good amount of the fuel, you'd imagine), collapsed first.

Now what about WTC 7? As 'perfect' as the collapses of the two towers seemed, it was nothing compared to that of 7. The explanation here is even sillier, and I recommend some research on the subject. A pretty good site here:

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7.html

[MadHound]

33. Perhaps you are correct

In fact the Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, a plane whose specs closely match those of the planes that crashed into the Towers. Yet they collapsed anyway.

The official reason for the collapse however is that fire weakened the structural steel to the point where it started to weaken and collapse. Now first off, structural steel doesn't begin to weaken until it reaches 1100F, which is, at minimum 200 degrees warmer than the maximum possbile temperature of the fire(jet fuel, under ideal circumstance, can only reach 900 F) So how could this have weakened the structural steel?

Secondly, even if it did weaken the structural steel sufficiently to cause said collapse, you are still faced with the physics problem of the buildings coming straight down into their own footprint. When you weaken a structure, any structure, via fire, that structure collapses towards the source of the weakening, ie the fire. Thus, if as the official story goes, the cause of the collapse was fire, then the Towers should have heeled over towards the fire. Given the size of the building and the weight on top, the Towers would have only had to heel over at most 100 ft before they went on over sideways. Yet both Towers, hit in different spots, in different ways, with different amounts of fuel somehow defied the long odds of physics and came straight down into their own footprint.

Do you realize just how unlikely that is? Do you realize how much work is required by demolition crews in order to insure that a building comes straight down into their own footprint? But apparently luck was throwing craps that day, for not only did we see the first three structural steel buildings ever collapse from fire that day, but we also saw the odds defying spectacle of three different building that were damaged in completely different ways all collapse virtually straight down into their own footprint.

Friend, what we saw that day was the Big Lie. And sadly many many people bought it.

[leesa]

44. Right. That's why the towers blown up in Spain collapsed. You have no

basis for your statement according to the guy who built it and most reports I have read. Only a demolition would have caused that to fall that way. And please spare us 'the fire was hot enough' bit...it wasn't hot enough and it was nearly burned out when they collapsed.

[petgoat]

158. Even if the fires could have been hot enough, there is no evidence that

they were, because the steel was destroyed. The pieces of interest
could have been recovered because every piece was marked with a stamped
identifying number. NIST has not one single piece of core steel that
shows heating about 250 degrees C.

[rman]

57. Toppling over would be a result of the asymetrical damage,

not of some force pushing the buildings over. So the question where this energy came from is irrelevant.

Fact is the damage was asymetrical, fact is the collapses were symetrical.

Happened twice on one day. That same day a third building nearby that had not nearly the amount of damage that the towers had, also collapsed symetrically (WTC7).

[Spinzonner]

69. No, you're wrong

it would be the result of asymmetrical structural FAILURE, not damage. And you need to demonstrate the the failure was sufficiently asymmetrical to cause one side to fail before another.

That might have been likely if the principle failure mode was directly a result of the impacts of the planes. But of course, the planes are not dense objects at all and were pulverized and vaporized by the impact and explosion and did not directly cause extensive damage to enough of the vertical supports between the floors. The failures of the supports were due to separation from the crossmembers at the point they were held together by bolts which were weakened by the fires.

It was the weight of the building, imposed essentially uniformly from above, that caused the vertical supports to succumb to the stress when they were no longer held in sufficiently by the crossmembers. That's why they 'blew out' and seemed to some to be a prepared explosion.

The fact is that the weakened buildings collapsed of their own weight and the transmitted shocks that propogated from the upper floors falling onto the failure floor(s) and then pancaking down.

[HamdenRice]

76. Aren't you arguing counter-factually? There was asymmetrical failure

Just look at this pic of the south tower:



Doesn't this show asymmetrical failure, with one side failing before the other?

Please explain.

[Spinzonner]

92. But the building didn't 'topple over', did it ?

Because the energy of the failure was supplied by gravity puilling downward.

The fact that it began asymmetrically doesn't prove anything other than one side of the failure floors was probably weakened more than another and failed first. Once that began, however, the shocks and stresses spread and overwhelmed the rest of the structure in a more uniform manner.

And there is no claim that it was an absolutely perfect symmetrical collapse.

The fact is that there was no sufficient sideways forces and therefore energy to displace the structure sideways sufficiently overcome the forces pulling it down vertically to create a so-called toppling effect.

[HamdenRice]

97. Yes, it did -- look at the picture

The top of the south tower in fact, tipped over before disintegrating.

Your argument, essentially that the towers were too massive to topple over, is disproved by reality. The photo shows that asymmetrical failure of a tall structure can cause it to topple over without a sideways force.

[Spinzonner]

103. You seem to be unable to understand the difference

between "topple", which is to lean as it did, and "topple over" which would have been a sideways fall.

The fall and failure was vertical. The fact that it began with a sideways lean is not relevant to the essential nature of the failure.

[HamdenRice]

108. Why do official story apologists use insults rather than reason?

I am unable to understand? My testy aren't we today?

I'll ignore your general nastiness and inability to discuss an important matter civilly and just point out this about the picture: Look at the corner of the tower in the upper left part of the picture. It has extended out over the street and is no longer directly above the footprint of the tower.

This conclusively disproves your point -- namely that a structure cannot topple over without a lateral force.

You seem unable to see.

[Spinzonner]

113. Pointing out semantic differences is not an insult, it's a fact

The building did not 'topple over'. It fell vertically after initially leaning or 'toppling' at the beginning of the failure. Toppling over would have involved it continuing to fall sideways so that the top of the builsing landed significantly off-center and away from the vertical of the building.

And you so-called lateral force is gravity pulling down non-uniformly on the top of the building due to the INITIAL asymmetrical aspect of the structural failure. There is no external lateral force.

[HamdenRice]

117. Saying you are unable to understand is an insult and ...

it seems to be the universal rhetorical tactic of official story apologists. I just find it curious. Maybe it is cognitive dissonance. But it ensures that there is little civil, intelligent, productive discussion between official story skeptics and official story apologists.

Maybe that's the point of the tactic -- just like RW republican rhetorical tactics

<edite>

[rinsd]

136. Here's an insult....you're a complete hypocrite....

You're keep refering to people as apologists for the official story when that is not occuring.

"just like RW republican rhetorical tactics"

Hey pot...the kettle is calling. Gee where did the term apologist originate?

[HamdenRice]

139. Elevating the level of discourse even higher, eh?

If you call any alternative explanation of the collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 "bullshit", as several early posts did, I would call that apologists for the official explanation.

And I still don't understand why official story apologists like your are so routinely insulting and hostile. Again, it must be cognitive dissonance.

[rinsd]

148. Whereas your problem seems to be conjoined cranium rectum syndrome (nt)

[reprobate]

296. You are, of course, right. Simple vector analysis of the towers will...

prove it. Doesnt even take a P.E. to do that analysis. High school geometry.

[dionysus]

70. I'm sure you know more about this than a....

physics professor! bwahahahahahaha

[Spinzonner]

94. Perhaps more than a physics professor who isn't a structural engineer

and who has done a superficial and ignorant analysis.

It isn;t the title that matters, it's the facts and how they are applied to the laws.

[iconoclastNYC]

129. What are your bone fides

To call this superficial and ignorant? Give me a break.

[msongs]

99. didja see the pbs special on NOVA talking 'bout the collapse?

theory was the design of the building and the inherent weaknesses caused the collapse after the plane crashes.

plausible? certainly. absolute proof? no

did dick cheney pilot one plane and parachute out over the city before impact? plausible? certainly. absolute proof? no.


Msongs
www.msongs.com/chinamart.htm

[Spinzonner]

120. I'm afraid that

the absurdity of your comparison rather ruins any claim to seriousness of your analysis.

At least the pbs story was scientifically credible and consistent with a lot of known facts. Hardly the same as your Dicvk Cheney 'example'.

[petgoat]

156. It's not an either/or proposition.

I agree that the planes lacked the energy to topple the building, but
since the damage and the fires were assymetrical, the completely
symmetrical collapse seems peculiar--especially when you consider the
tilt in the top of the south tower.



The law of the conservation of angular momentum says that when something
has been shoved crooked, it should keep going. The top should have
fallen off the tower as a unit. Instead it turned to dust in the air.

[Kailassa]

285. No-one is suggesting that any planes could have toppled ...

the towers by force.

However if one side or corner gave way before the others did, the building above that would have toppled on an angle. To pancake neatly, all sides and corners had to give way at exactly the same moment, which would be most unlikely to happen randomly. Overall, it is more likely that the people who benefited from the event caused it, than that all 3 towers fell in a way that demolition experts have to study for years and go to a great deal of trouble to achieve.

If I was the demolition expert responsible for bringing those buildings down so neatly, I'd be very proud of myself; - if I could live with myself at all, and if "they" took the risk of leaving me alive.

Which leaves me wondering, has anyone investigated deaths of demolition experts and workers after that incident "dead microbiologist" style?

[janedoe]

313. OK, so they've worn out the 9/11 card; time for a new one!

GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7639.shtml

[Imagine My Surprise]

14. I remember thinking, as I saw footage of the "collapse" --

that I've seen this kind of thing before. And, of course, I have. Watching footage of controlled demolitions.

And let's remember how unpopular Bush had become prior 9/11. Hmmm.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. I have absolutely no knowledge of physics

but if all the metal melted, wouldn't they collapse straight down?

[MadisonProgressive]

21. There wasn't enough heat to melt the metal

[Village Idiot]

23. This is part of the dodge, too.

Structural steel apparently requires a temperature FAR GREATER than burning jet fuel can provide in order to melt...

[Spinzonner]

34. But not the bolts holding the floor crosspieces to the vertical columns

that framed the building. When those bolts failed the vertical supports blew out from the weight they were supporting and the affected fllor collapsed. The shock and weight of that caused forces to be applied to the lower floors successively causing their vertical columns - the external ones being the weight-bearing ones because of the building's design to be 'light' - to fail resulting in a pancaking collapse.

[MadHound]

42. Uh, yes, the bolts also

The bolts are made with the same comparable material that the beams are made out of. There is no point, and it is against most building codes, to use substandard bolts with structural steel buildings. Doing so would only insure that the building blew over in a big wind.

[tinrobot]

58. Steel doesn't have to melt for a structure to fail

It simply has to weaken.

Steel softens at a much lower temperature than it melts, and once one part of the building fails, the rest goes with it like a house of cards.

[we can do it]

135. No Steel Frame Bilding HAS EVER collapsed due to fire- then 3 .

Like This?

http://freepress2005.blogspot.com/2005/02/madrids-burning-building-stands-world.html




:sarcasm:

[rman]

61. If all the metal in the building melded simulaniously, yes

But then one would have a hard time explaining how all the metal melted instantaniouly, especially since the fires were
A) limited to a few floors
B) not hot enough to melt steel (just try melting steel over an open fire)

All this is even more peculiar because of reports of a large pool of molten steel in the basement area of the buildings.

[MadisonProgressive]

18. He makes a pretty good case for outright MIHOP!

[Nordmadr]

19. I have read a couple of books on this, and you may call me crazy

but when I piece together the actions of our government and the observable physical evidence I just don't buy the public story.

"Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George Bush" by John W. Dean and "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin both make excellent reads.

It just always seemed illogical to me to not have a serious investigation into what happended. Why were materials from the sites quickly loaded up and shipped away? Why did WTC7 collapse? Video from the Pentagon? How about a terible pilot flying a very large plane just a few feet off the ground and smashing into the Pentagon...leaving an itty bitty hole?

There are far too many questions that should, and have not been addressed to the satisfaction of many people. If the evidence supported your claims, it would sure seem smart to show it, satisfy the questons, and improve your abysmal approval amongst the American public. I have seen nothing from this administration to make me trust them or to believe in their objectives. I trust them about as far as I could throw an elephant.

Olaf

[berni_mccoy]

50. The News is Starting To Spread

This story was picked up by a local CBS station:

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html

[bj2110]

20. I'm a structural engineer. I primarily design steel-frame buildings. While

I agree that there may have been a political motive to take down the WTC as an "inside job", the WTC 7 was most likely a controlled explosion, and that there has to be an independant, international, investigation into the collapse, including analyzing material, unreleased video, etc... I still buy the pancaking theory.

Many of this guy's points can be explained with the pancaking theory. When a column system becomes overloaded (and the additional load can ocurr 1, 2, or 20 stories up), it will fail at the weakest point. Usualy this is due to imperfections in the metal, or even due irregularities in the connections. When a steel column fails, it sounds like an explosion, especially when the failure is caused upstream by an impact load, i.e. one floor smashing down on another.

When a skyscraper structure loses its capacity to support itself, the only possible outcome is that it crumbles on itself. It will not "topple" over. That is absurd. A skyscraper is composed of millions of 10' - 50' pieces of steel, some horizontal, some vertical, some at an angle for bracing. When the connections that hold all these pieces together become overstressed, they will break or fail, and that failure will seem like an explosion. A structural connection failure doesn't manifest itself gradually, stress builds up, then it is released in one violent surge. When enough connections fail, connected members are not supported, and they drop vertically, ala gravity. As members start to drop, they impact other members, causing more connection failures. These violent connection failures could be interpreted as a series of explosions.

The cause of the collapse of the WTC towers is undeniable. Trust me. The planes weakened the structure at the top, and the unsupported weight had to go somewhere. It went down, and overloaded the rest of the structure, in succession, until the building was gone. And yes, that much weight creates an enormous amount of momentum as it picks up velocity under the acceleration of gravity. Physics or chemistry cannot slow down gravity.

Now, the WTC 7 is another story. This one went down too quickly, and too late. It is obvious to me that this building was brought down. There was no violent act which started the chain reaction. In my opinion, the structure was deemed dangerous and impeded the relief effort of the towers. Experts were brought in that day to relieve the stresses, and control the collapse.

But not the towers.

Now, the real story is who flew the planes, and why? They were Saudis for Christ's sake. Who benefited from the collapse? Who didn't seem surprised to hear the country was under attack? Who's companies are hand-in-hand with Saudi elite? Who profited from the fear that came out of the attack?

Those are the obvious questions, and we all know the answers.

[MadisonProgressive]

24. Trust you? OK, if you say so Karl.

[bj2110]

27. Well, I happen to think I'm a bit more of an expert than you. So, yes,

trust me as a DU member who knows steel buildings. Trust me as one who fully believes our administration had something to do with 9/11 happening. And trust me when I say the WTC towers were brought down from the top by violent impacts of jet airliners. It's what happened. We need to focus on why and how.

[Chiyo-chichi]

41. Is it true

that no steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire?

[tinrobot]

56. There's this thing called gravity.

It pulls things straight down. If there is nothing to stop an object's fall, it will fall straight down.

Most people make the mistake of thinking the WTC would topple over like a tree. A tree, however, is solid. The WTC was made of steel and concrete, but that was not much more than a framework. Over 90% of the building's volume was air.

Because there was nothing but air in the way of the debris' fall, the debris fell straight down.

[Chiyo-chichi]

63. I just asked a question

about steel frame buildings. Maybe you are replying to someone else?

[tinrobot]

73. Sorry...

n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

131. self delete. mistake.

[Make7]

315. No it is not.

In Chicago, Illinois, the McCormick Place Exhibition Center collapsed as a result of a fire in 1967. In this structure, the steel-frame of the building was unprotected. The reference to McCormick Place is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel.

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

[MadisonProgressive]

46. There seem to be other qualified opinions that differ with yours.

[bj2110]

274. Personally, I think Structural Engineers are much more qualified to

investigate the forensics of a structural collapse than a physics professor. So, if you're insinuating that Mr. BYU here know what he's talking about steel structures and how they act, I'd caution you. Physics has very little to do with static structures. Physics is theory, it's research. Believe it or not, engineering is practicality and understanding real world examples. I guarantee you that 99.9% or more of licensed structural engineers will agree with the offical collapse sequence and cause. I know I do.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

38. If WT7 was brought down

why wouldn't they have just admited that? Do you think they would feel it made them look guilty regarding the towers? And could they take down that building that quickly? What time did it go down? Late afternoon, wasn't it? Could they put that level of demolition together that quickly?

[QuettaKid]

47. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT

they couldn't put it together that quickly...it was PRE-PLANNED, hence MIHOP. WTC7 fell a little after 5 pm on 9/11.

[tinrobot]

64. Have you ever seen what goes into a controlled demolition?

Miles and miles of wire, hundreds of carefully placed explosives, plus you have to literally rip the the walls of building apart to install these explosives. I'm sure someone could do that on a 30 year old building occupied by thousands of people without ever being detected.

I think it would be much easier to set WTC7 on fire, then collapse two of the largest buildings in the world a few hundred feet away.

[screembloodymurder]

105. Most of it was done during construction.

The rest was done by night crews.

[rinsd]

110. Construction?

The original construction of the building?

[rinsd]

107. Dude, saw other demos on the Discovery channel, looked the same to me...

...that about sums up the controlled demo argument.

[Qibing Zero]

155. You do know WTC7 was filled with government agencies and such, right? nt

[petgoat]

160. No miles of wire, no hundreds of charges, no ripped out walls

No miles of wire--use radio control. Powerful transmitters and
insensitivie receivers filter out the other radio noise.

No hundreds of charges--Van Romero said a few charges would do it.
MIT's "zipper theory" implies that if one truss comes loose, the whole
floor unzips and the building comes down like a house of cards.

No ripped out walls. Charges would be placed above the hanging ceilings
next to the perimeter columns and core columns. Charges could be placed
in the elevator shafts very quickly--using the top of the elevator car
as movable staging.

[reprobate]

299. Remember the fact that the two towers were closed for manitanence....

The weekend before the collapse and I believe the weekend before that also. And a Bush Brother was in charge of the security of the towers.

Also, consider the fact that Bin Laden and his followers were formed by and supported by the CIA, run by GHW Bush at the beginning, so we DO have a direct connection between the neocons and the Saudi perpetrators.

IMHO, it is always smart to err on the side of disbelief when it comes to any statement by a republican neocon. There is almost nothing I would put past this bunch. Cannibalism? maybe that.

[bj2110]

275. The planning that goes into controlled demolitions has more to do with

protecting the surrounding community, safety of spectators, etc... It takes very little planning to know where to place explosives. There was no need to perform all the precautionary activities here. The building needed to come down when they could reasonably control the area. That was that. Whether or not there was a malicious motive in bringing down the building (goverment agencies, etc...), I don't know. I'm just saying it could have been planned and carried out that day.

[Arianrhod]

39. "Physics or chemistry cannot slow down gravity."

Are you saying that, if I fall off a cliff, my rate of descent will be exactly the same whether I free fall in air, or hit obstacles along the way?

I'm sorry, but your statement is incorrect in its given form. Did you mean to say something else?

[SidDithers]

48. No, the poster is correct, it is you who are wrong...

Gravity and rate of descent are two different things. I don't think the poster said anything about rate of descent.

Sid

[Arianrhod]

150. That's why I asked the question.

The poster's terminology led me to believe that s/he was referring to the rate of descent of the buildings, ie, that their vertical fall was strictly a matter of gravitational forces. But that couldn't be correct, because the building below the fracture point was a solid structure, and any matter in the path of descent would necessarily impede the rate and pattern of that descent. I'm not convinced by his/her interpretation that a solid structure, being weakened at a point in its upper regions, would necessarily collapse vertically. Such a structure, however, collapsing from its foundation, would.

I wasn't contesting the poster's knowledge of physics, just his/her explanation of the event.

[bj2110]

287. Actually, you got that backwards. A structure failing at its foundation

is more likely to shift laterally during its collapse. Think about a table losing a leg, or earthquakes for that matter. A structure failing from the top wil go straight down. Take that same table and jump up and down on it. It goes straight down.

[Arianrhod]

314. Earthquakes?

I'm from Los Angeles. You're not going to try to tell me that earthquakes don't knock things off of shelves, are you? The objects don't fall through the shelves, nor do the shelves drop straight to the ground. Normally, they're thrown to the side.

The towers weren't hit on the roof, as if someone had jumped on them. Take your table and throw a bowling ball through it, from the side. See if the table collapses vertically. Moreover, during a controlled demolition of a table (continuing your analogy), all four legs would be removed at once--not one at a time, as you suggest. And in that case, absolutely yes the table would fall vertically. But not with only one leg missing. (Actually, most tables would probably continue to stand with only one leg missing.)

I think your argument's a bit weak. ;)

[bj2110]

316. OK, you missed my point completely. Earthquakes are a perfect example

of a failure that causes a lateral collapse. I agree, I don't know how you didn't think I said that. Any time a structure fails at its base, it is more likely to fall to the side, as the center of gravity is shifted from the very instant of failure.

However, a plane crashing into the top of a tower does not alter the center of gravity at the base. The plane's momentum was completely insignificant compared to the mass of the structure. The actual impact had no effect.

The comparison to a bowling ball falling straight down is exactly what happened. As floors and columns became overloaded and connections failed, the structure reacted with gravity and gravity alone. Gravity works downward. There was a huge mass of steel and concrete that was continually falling and impacting and falling and impacting. This is the bowling ball, not the plane.

Jumping on the table is similar to this mass of material falling with gravity. Falling straight down. If the collapse was initiated at the structure base, it could have fallen to the side. But, that's not what happened.

[bj2110]

276. No, gravity is an acceleration. Not a rate of descent. Nothing stops that

acceleration (actually, it's a force,but take out mass, and it's an acceleration, see Newton). Yes, impacts will slow the velocity, but at this scale, impact delays would be so insignficant compared to the weight and momentum of the falling materials...

[MadHound]

45. Then please explain a couple of things

If this is as easy as you say it is, then why do we use controlled demolitions at all? If gravity takes care of the work as efficiently as you claim, then there would be no reason to do pinpoint placement of explosives in order to drop a building straight into its footprint.

But instead we have seen demolition evolve into a precise science. And we have also seen the results when the charges are misplaced, or not placed at all. The building generally topples over to one side or the other. Yet somehow, miraculously defying the odds, two towers, hit in different ways and different locations, both collapsed virtually straight down into their own footprint.

In addition, explain to me how a jet fuel fire that is nowhere near hot enough to weaken structural steel, much less melt it, collapsed these buildings. Tapes of the firefighters on the scene recorded them calling for only three lines each to put out the fires in the towers. They also record them, and witness statements back them up, stating that the sprinkler system and other fire retardent measures were indeed funtioning that day. Now being a former fighter I can tell that if you're only calling for three lines in order to put out a fire, I don't care if they're three inch lines, that means that the fire is definetly controllable, not a raging inferno that is weakening structural steel.

Too many coincedences, too many unanswered questions, too many loose ends for this to fit as the true story of what went down that day.

[doublethink]

75. Fire? What fire? ......

My opinion is still out on this subject. I hear the kind of steel in the towers needed anywhere from 1300 degrees F' to 2000 and upward to melt, weaken or whatever. I've heard estimates of the temperature in the building only reaching 600 to 1000 degrees. We all know the Bin Ladens and Bushies go way back together. PNAC needed a 'Pearl Harbor' stated in it's documents to procure the 66% oil reserves of the world in the Middle East. We know these two buildings are the only ones in recorded history to fall from melting steel....... I also know 3000 of our fellow American Citizens died that day and in no way should this case be closed. The Bush administration stonewalled the investigation on and on and on and on ..... terror terror terror terror terror terror ..... the mantra hasn't stopped since. 40,000 Americans loose their lives on our roads and highways every fricking year in automobile accidents. And the odds of anyone of us dieing in a car accident are way way way more credible than a terrorist attack. But I hope the people interested in researching 911 never rest. The jury is still out, and that's fine with me. Peace. :)

[bj2110]

286. I agree completely. I just wish the investigation would shift focus to the

planes, the Saudies, PNAC, BushCo, etc... We're wasting our time trying to understand how they fell. It's been explained. Let's figure out why they were attacked, let's figure out who planned the attack, let's understand the motives and understand who gained from it. That's where is research is best spent...

[bj2110]

278. Most controlled demolitions purposefully weaken one side or another of

the structure in order to ensure the collapse misses the closest vulnerability. Controlled demolitions also usually work from bottom up. Take out the column bases evenly spread , and the floors above have no where to go but down. Take out a corner only of the column bases, and the building will roll over on itself like a table missing a leg.

In the case of the WTC towers, the uppers floors do "topple" a little due to the impact of the jets being primiarily on one side only. But, as the gravity takes over, the horizontal component of the movement becomes so overwhelmed by the vertical component (which is increasing in intensity as it collapses), that any lateral collapse becomes insignificant.

Now, in terms of fire intensity-

I have a little experience in this matter as well. The intensity of fire relative to a structure is an equation with many variable, including venting capabilities, distance from source, etc... I worked this issue in understanding the fire rating and fireproofing requirements of the press/suite structure at the future Univ. Central Fla. stadium being constructed next year. Structural steel significantly loses elasticity (meaning its ability to return to form after being stressed) at fairly low fire temperatures, 1000 - 1200 degrees F. If the exposure time is long enough and the venting is poor and the source of the fire (jet fuel) is in close contact with the connections, the bolts and plates that hold the larger structural members together become more and more ductile It's sort of like a paper clip when you bend it back and forth a few times.

A fire doesn't have to be out of control, or even widespread to trigger something like this. It just needs to be in the right location, burning with intensity, and with no ventilation to help cool the steel connections.

But, yes, I agree that there are too many unanswered questions. But the questions should be aimed at the motives and who profited from the act and why. The collapse was caused by two jets crashing into the tops of the towers. No doubt in my mind about that...

[pox americana]

52. Turn off your TV and look at the evidence.

There are no buckled columns and there was no "pancaking." In order for that theory to be true, every one of the 63,140 column sections in the two towers would have had to buckle, but of all the photographs of surviving columns I've seen, not one shows clear sign of compressive load failure. Most are either perfectly straight or in the case of the built-up core columns, blown apart.

[bj2110]

280. I agree that "pancaking" is a pretty elemntary way to describe it, but

we're dealing with impact loads here, and not with gradually loaded compression.

The straight column sections can be explained through connection failure. Once the connection is gone, theres no mechanism for load transfer, hence, no buckling, it's just steel sticks falling and creating more failed connections.

The built-up core columns carried a huge load. Under the impact of that level of concrete and steel mass accelerating with gravity, how can we expect to predict their reaction? The core columns bore the brunt of the collapse, getting impacted with much more frequency and intensity than the outer columns. If you put a popsicle stick on end and drop a bowling ball on it a couple hundred times, I bet it looks like it exploded, too...

[pox americana]

300. But nothing. Compression failure is compression failure

and there's no sign of it anywhere. You're only making a fool of yourself by repeating a lot of nonsense off the television, sorry.

[bj2110]

318. Actually, I haven't watched a single television segment on the structural

failure. Sorry to dissapoint. What I have seen, however, are structural models, engineering calculations, and framing plans for countless steel framed structures. Quite a bit more than the average Joe, if I may say so. I know what "compression failure" is. Buckling occurs when the compressive load exceeds the allowable stress on any cross section. This buckling occurs at the least compact element in the shape.

My point is that compression failure or no compression failure, the amount of steel and concrete that crashed to the ground is simply too large to be able to discern whether or not any one element failed in any particular way. Any damaged element could just have easily been altered during the collapse and after its initial failure.

My higher point is that our efforts should be focused on why these planes attacked us, and not how the towers fell.

[pox americana]

319. Okay, maybe you haven't.

They found plenty of other ways to get their message out.

The point is that if you look at how WTC 1 & 2 were constructed you realize that "progressive collapse" as a result of floor truss failures, as we're led to believe occurred, is totally preposterous.

Check out this photo for instance:



As you can see, the floor trusses weren't exactly holding up the building.

Also, plenty of columns survived, and yes they show deformations from falling and getting blown out, but they don't show distinctive signs of buckling:





Hope that helps.

[berni_mccoy]

55. Most compelling Video that WTC 7 was DEMO'd

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/squibview.7.qt

[HamdenRice]

60. Thanks for this thoughtful post and your expertise -- but one question

I agree with most of what you wrote and defer to your expertise. I also think the weak link in the official explanation is WTC. The official explanation of its collpse is absurd.

But the explanation of the collapse of the towers is not just an engineering question, but also an evidentiary one.

In other words, you are saying that the planes are a sufficient explanation of the collapse of the towers. I agree. The planes could have brought them down.

But is that the only possible explanation. Is it possible that the towers could have survived the planes? If so, the engineering explanation is one possible explanation, but not the only one.

And then, if as you admit, WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, doesn't that give a great deal of credence to the possibility that WTC1 and WTC2 were also brought down by demolition.

In other words, either the planes or controlled demolition can explain the collapse of the towers. Given a controlled demo at 7, doesn't that make controlled demo at 1 and 2 more likely?

[bj2110]

281. Perhaps, but we have evidence of the planes causing the collapse, i.e.

the planes themselves, video, etc... and no evidence for controlled demo on the towers. However, there is no evidence of any singular cause of the collapse of WTC 7.

You can't just create an additional plausible cause for the collapse out of thin air.

[rman]

67. If WTC7 was controlled demolition, then the towers also could have.

If one building could have been rigged with explosives beforehand, then so could other buildings.

If demolition of one building can be covered up by the gov't and blamed on terrorists, then so could the controlled demolition of other buildings.

If they are capable of doing such things then what the fuck else are they capable of.

[tinrobot]

80. Evil geniuses?

I doubt it.

The people running the country are evil, but very inept.

[screembloodymurder]

116. I agree with your analysis, but what I don't understand

is why lie about building #7.

[bj2110]

282. Good question. I don't know, but I suspect the city engineers would have

a hard time justifying a purposeful demolition in light of everything that happened. How can you begin a rescue effort with a building standing over you that might fall down at any moment? The first rule in rescue is to make sure the rescuer is safe. And everyone thought there would be survivors, and that the effort couldn't wait for the demolition to be publicised. Once it happened, they could never go public that the collapse was man made, or purposefully accelerated.

Just a theory of course, but it makes the most sense to me in light of the totally ludicrous explanation we have for 7.

[RC]

132. Well, Mr. Structural Engineer, answer me this...

There were 47 inner support columns in the Twin Towers, some going down 300 feet into the bedrock. The largest in the center were, just shy of 3 feet X 4 feet on the outside. Hollow tubes with a thickness of 4 inches coming out of the bedrock.

Now the question: Why were all of the support columns cut off coming out of the bedrock?
Why, if the building pancaked down, that none of the massive support columns were still standing?
Should they at least be sticking up 40 to 60 feet in the air after the pancake collapse? After all the fire was some 100 stories above the bedrock.

And don't give me that crap about all that jet fuel flowing down the elevator shafts and burning in the 7th sub-basement so fiercely that is softened/melted enough of those 47 massive columns to collapse the buildings. There would be no way a fire would get enough air down there to burn that hot, let alone to get enough burning jet fuel down evaluator shafts. Most of if not all of the shafts that were on the impact level did not go down that far...

[bj2110]

284. See Post #280 above. There was nothing to stop gravity. Nothing until

the bedrock. Glue a popsicle stick between to large cement blocks and drop a bowling ball on it a few times, I'll bet there's nothing left of the popsicle stick above the glue....

[RC]

288. Wrong analogy.

There was nothing on top of these columns. All of the columns went to the top of whatever part of the building they positioned at.
All of the floor supports were attached to the sides of the columns.
And to pancake straight down your way, the steele would have to bend and twist. The odds of the building staying in the foot print would be kind of slim, don't cha think? Those were some massive up-rights.
Now, if the floor support points were sheared off on the way down, which they would have to do to stay within the footprint why didn't the columns stay up right and rise above the rubble?

[bj2110]

298. Kind of naive to think the floors just came down on top of each other

perfectly vertical. That's not what I'm insinuating. Remember, a floor is a concrete slab, steel supports, ceiling materials, ducts, furniture, electrical wires, etc.... As the floors dropped, the concrete broke up, crumbled, bounced off of other pieces of concrete, steel, etc... On the way down, it's a ball of construction materials, not a flat floor. This huge ball of construction materials is exactly like a bowling ball. And the relative mass of a bowling ball to a popsicle stick is pretty close to 100+ floor ball of rubble relative to individual columns, even if they are 3' x 4'.

[SidDithers]

25. Take it to the the 9-11 forum...

you'll find a welcome and willing audience there...

Sid

[rolleitreks]

28. This is just a game, right? Or are they really wasting energy on it? n/t

[we can do it]

137. So We Should Just Believe the Governments Story W?O Question?

Why Is Finding Out What Really Happened A Waste?

[LunaC]

29. Equally suspicious

is how quickly the evidence was removed from scrutiny.....

Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal of record among America’s fire engineers and firefighters, recently blasted the investigation being conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the collapsed World Trade Center as a “a half-baked farce.” Fire Engineering’s editor, William Manning, issued a “call to action” to America’s firefighters and fire engineers in the January issue asking them to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to demand a blue ribbon panel to thoroughly investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center structures. Fire Engineering frequently publishes technical studies of major fires and is read in more than 50,000 fire departments and schools of fire engineering across the nation.

-snip-

“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China....

-snip-

Nowhere in the national standard for fire investigation does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall, Manning said. “Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident’s magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully-resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. The lessons about the buildings’ design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

-snip-

Given the magnitude of the disaster “you would think we would have the largest fire investigation in world history,” the editorial says. “You would be wrong. Instead, we have a series of unconnected and uncoordinated superficial inquiries. No Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission.’ No top-notch National Transportation Safety Board-like response. Ironically, we will probably gain more detailed information about the destruction of the planes than we will about the destruction of the towers. We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.”

-snip-

A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, commissioned by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is reported to be studying “some aspects of the collapse,” but not all, according to Manning and others. The engineers’ investigation, they say, has not looked into all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence.

“Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members—described by one close source as a “tourist trip”—no one’s checking the evidence for anything,” Manning said. “As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.”

http://www.americanfreepress.net/Conspiracy/Fire_Engineers_Call_WTC_Probe/fire_engineers_call_wtc_probe.html

[wovenpaint]

30. MIHOP here

Wasn't *'s brother, Marvin in charge of, or involved
with the security company for the WTC at the time?

[we can do it]

224. Yes and He also had something to do with the Airlines Security, too.

Anybody have the specifics?

[patcox2]

31. this the same guy who discovered cold fusion?

BYU physics department has a ton of credibility.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

40. His other research interests include....

"Evidence for Christ's Visit in America"

Glad he's keepin' it real.

[QuettaKid]

49. Mormons believe all sorts

of things like that. It's the very basis of their religion. Does that automatically discount his research into what happened to the towers?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

77. What research?

All I see is a bunch of unsubstantiated hogwash propogated by a proponent of cold fusion who also believes there were horses in North America before the Europeans.

He is, in short, a fucking crack POT.

[rinsd]

109. LOL...

Well isn't that a giant turd in the punch bowl!

[0007]

88. I thought it was the University of Utah in Salt Lake City! n/t

[leesa]

43. Necessary access? Marvin Bush....sat on the Board of Directors for

the company providing security to the WTC "until the day they fell down". Dubya for some reason forgot to disclose this little tidbit as he was required to. Marvin also sat on BOD for United Airlines Security company.

[rman]

68. "Marvin also sat on BOD for United Airlines Security company."

Well f me sideways.

[berni_mccoy]

51. The News is Starting To Spread

The story was picked up by a local CBS station:

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html

[JanMichael]

53. His research is up for peer review, and is being published in a scholarly

journal.

I will wait for the publication and peer review rather than read the "I am an expert" posts on DU. I can't understand why anyone would argue this on a public message board---the man is clearly not just stating a claim and throwing it into the press to be a sensationalist.

He makes no claim to know WHO was responsible...in fact states clearly that scientific research must be done to determine exact cause first.

How in the world can anyone "argue" with that?

[HamdenRice]

54. Blink - blink? It's bright out! Are we being allowed out of thedungeon??

Well, at least for a few minutes before we are zapped back into the 9/11 dungeon.

More seriously, every time I read a convincing MIHOP or LIHOP analysis, I literally get sick to my stomach, contemplating that anyone in government would be so evil.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

87. God I hope not. n/t

[Festivito]

62. Wouldn't matter if it were true, Bush would fall by other means.

This recurring exercise in taking DUers
away from reading important stories,
promoting a sense of conspiritorialism, and
its associated stereotyping of liberals,
is useless.

The public wouldn't buy it even if they found unexploded bombs.

It belongs on Jerry Springer's BS NEWS, when wind breaks, it's BS news.

[petgoat]

277. The public wouldn't buy it even if they found unexploded bombs.

Seems to me that makes speaking the truth more important, not less.

Great unspeakable truths are the symptom of a co-dependent dysfunctional
family. Is that the reality you want to maintain for a democracy?

Speaking of unexploded bombs, according to OK State Rep. Charles Key and
several OK TV news reporters, unexploded bombs were found in the federal
building in OK City.

[TomNickell]

66. Mods, PLEASE.

Get this Bullshit Crap back to the 9/11 hole!

It's been up here quite long enough.

[SidDithers]

74. Seconded!...nt

Sid

[tinrobot]

78. THIRDED!

sigh...

[JanMichael]

79. You consider a professor who is doing research in a scholarly journal

"Bullshit Crap?"

I find it fascinating that DUers will go off on the Conservative administration for their suppression of education in the US...but, when a man who holds a PHd in Physics makes a claim, backs that claim up with research, is willing to hold this up to peer review...that there will be DUers who will call him a tin-foiler...."I don't believe that..."

or...in your case...relegate the article to a lesser read forum, and call it "bullshit."

Fascinating.

We really aren't that much more intelligent than Freepers, are we.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

81. What "scholarly journal" would that be? n/t

[pitohui]

85. same one that published byu prof claims abt cold fusion, maybe

just as there is some doctor somewhere who was last in his class in medical school, there is some physics ph.d somewhere who was last in his class at university

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

90. But first in his class of Mormon? n/t

[CabalPowered]

106. That wasn't BYU, that was U of Utah eom

[Arianrhod]

159. Do you guys realize

that NASA employs a fairly large number of researchers whose sole job is to invent FTL space travel?

Carl Sagan, in his seminal series Cosmos, devoted an entire episode to the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky. His conclusion? "The problem with Velikovsky's theory is not that it was wrong. It was the reaction of the scientists to it that was wrong. We never know where new knowledge is going to come from, and we ought not to throw ideas into the trash bin simply because they go against current thinking."

Just because this scientist is a Mormon doesn't in itself discredit him. If you have a scientific basis for opposing his theory, then, by all means, please share it with us. But if all you have is ad hominem attacks and snide remarks, then you aren't contributing to the discussion.

Buildings, under purely gravitational forces, do not collapse vertically. That is scientific fact. The administration has been impeding the investigation of 9-11 for 4 years now. There must be a reason why they are doing so. Whether or not you agree with the demolition theory, surely you must agree that the truth should be known. The only way to uncover it is to investigate it. Why would you be opposed to people who are doing, and advocating, that?

[tinrobot]

72. Sigh... he really needs to study physics and engineering.

As someone who has studied both of those subjects extensively, I have no doubt that the planes could easily have caused the collapse.

And, from a logistics standpoint -- why would someone go through all the trouble of hijacking a bunch of planes just to crash them into buildings that were ALREADY rigged to explode? And on top of that, the hijackers would have to be such terrific pilots that they could crash those planes into the exact same spot where the "explosives" were planted.

Nope. Doesn't pass the smell test. Way too complex. Occam's Razor applies here.

That said, I do think there is PLENTY of room for LIHIP/MIHOP. The evidence for that would be in exactly how those 19 people got into the country and boarded the planes without being caught. If you're looking for a conspiracy, that is where you'll find it.

[JanMichael]

82. Do you hold a PhD in these subjects?

He does; if you are one of the man's peers, then you should review his research after publication, and publish your opinions on the matter.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

84. He isn't publishing in a journal.

Where did everyone get that idea?

[JanMichael]

86. from this line of the article:

"In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year"

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

89. Which one?

Further down it refers to a book. If it's been submitted for peer-review, I'd like to have some words with the editors of whoever accepted it for review.

[JanMichael]

91. Third paragraph in the article

I am sure that they would love to hear from you.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

93. I must be blind.

Because I don't see the name of a peer-reviewed journal in the third paragraph.

[JanMichael]

95. OK, dear. I have a suggestion for you. Since you are interested

might I suggest that you contact the Physics dept. at BYU and inquire of the specific NAME of the journal that has accepted this man's work for both publication and peer review.

That apparently is going to be the only answer that satisfies you...unless there is someone on staff, or a student at BYU, you are actually going to have to do some of your own "research" to answer the question you are interested in.

I suggest "Google" for the phone number as a first step in your quest for knowledge.

Stephanie

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

100. Why not?

Gotta do something until this thread gets bonked.

[pox americana]

98. Could it be that they're not especially interested

in hearing from politically motivated non-scientists?

[msongs]

101. bush has a master's in business...is he qualified in that area then? nt

[tinrobot]

119. You don't need a PhD

Simplest explaination applies here.

Plane hits building. Building collapses. Physics tells us that that this sequence of events is totally possible. There have been several peer reviewed papers to this effect. We even have film of the planes hitting as well as thousands of eyewitnesses to support that this indeed did happen.

Setting up a bomb or controlled demolition could also destroy a building, and I'm sure the professor's math proves that if someone hypothetically got a bomb into the building, it could destroy the WTC. I'm sure someone could also do the math to prove that a giant lizard named Godzilla could destroy the buildings, and that paper might even be accepted into a peer reviewed journal. Doesn't mean it happened.

I doubt, however that this paper explains why someone went through all the trouble of hijacking four planes just so they could set off bombs that were already planted. Why not just set off the bombs? That's what happened in the 1993 bombing, they put a bomb in a truck, drove it to the WTC and set it off. They didn't didn't go through the trouble of hijacking planes then, why go through the trouble in 2001?

[JanMichael]

145. I believe you. I am looking forward to reading your professional review

of his work.

Let me know when it's published.

[pitohui]

83. brigham young university

enough said as far as i'm concerned

:eyes:

[AnnieBW]

96. From What I Understand

The terrorists didn't set out to completely collapse the WTC towers. I don't know if they wanted to topple them, or just to really screw things up. The fact that the towers collapsed was an "added bonus" to them. I don't think that they thought much beyond flying the planes into the buildings.

[ROH]

111. I think you may have been taken in...

You write: "From What I Understand ..."

Do you have a source? If your understanding is simply based upon the content of the video referenced below, I think you may have been taken in.

Look at the comparative pictures and follow the links in this article: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=1300#a121301murkyvideo

The one in the video appears to be more Jamaican than Arabian.

[bpilgrim]

112. It is a crime that we know more about Jackson's trial strat than 911

and i blame the M$M for keeping us all in the dark.

911 <-> BUSH KNEW

peace

[newspeak]

114. my tinfoil hat is on tight

We're arguing about the buildings, but I have questions about the "alleged" terrorists. I remember that day, that's when I found DU. One of the members of DU had a friend who was a pilot that was apparently talking about they were ordered to stand down and that his friend was told to keep his mouth shut. Does anybody remember that thread? Now if the story is correct that these terrorists were on the Sun Cruise line (Abromoff) before 9/11 and that some of the so-called terrorists were on military bases for training, then something doesn't smell right. Pork eating, woman loving Atta doesn't seem to be a devout, fanatical muslim. Also, these alleged terrorists share a connection of meeting in Vegas, incidentally, McVeigh went to Vegas, also. I know that a police officer in Oklahoma was doing his own investigation of the OK bombing and was apparently found suicided. Also, Congress was in session on 9/11, I want to know the roll call on that day, because I'm starting to think the plane that didn't make it was to hit Congress. Imagine if that plane had hit Congress while it was in session and what this administration could have gotten away with. It would have been the Reichstag fire in spades. Martial law would have been implemented and the "shadow" government would have full power and we would be in full dictatorship mode. If and when the truth comes out, it may not come from the US, but from real journalists from outside the country.

[slaveplanet]

115. Live stream- right now

live interview with Jones

http://sce.m2ktalk.com:8020/listen.pls

[QuettaKid]

121. Can I just jump in here to say

that this is the first time I have been on television?" ( quick Python reference) actually, I just wanted to say WOW that this thread hasn't been locked yet and WOW that a thread I started has gotten so many responses. It always seems anything loosely related to 9/11 automatically gets shunted off to tinfoil land.

[QuettaKid]

122. spoke too soon....nt.

.

[FreedomAngel82]

123. I knew it

And guess who had a security contract with the WTC up until 9/11/01? Bush's brother Neil. So they could've easily pulled it off. And didn't Rudy Guiliani get a warning fifteen minutes before it went down? And also don't forget that CBS doc with the firemen talking about bombs going off. I'm so glad to hear they're looking at this. It's a total MIHOP if not more.

[newspeak]

126. you know we're not the only ones that believe something smells

I've spoken to other people and heck, some people in New York, think something is "fishy." I believe in "truth" and I'm not going to stick my head in the sand like some kind of ostrich. It is good people discuss this, because this administration has been using 9/11 since the event. For the sake of our country and our children, we need the whole unvarnished truth.

[FreedomAngel82]

134. Yes

Another documentary to see is "Loose Change." Try to find it. It's really good and you should for sure try to find it.

[scorpiogirl]

141. I just saw that and I think

it leaves very little to question. Way back when my hubbie first suggested the demolition idea to me I thought he was nuts. Now I see for myself that this adminstration is capable of such a horrific act. It is a jumping off point for them and a means to an end. They've used it to justify many, many changes to our country since then.

[Make7]

317. Download "Loose Change" from this site:

http://www.question911.com

[HamdenRice]

142. "Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?"

That's a famous joke by Richard Pryor. He caught his girlfriend in bed with another man. She claims that she is definitely not sleeping with the other man. He says, I saw you in bed with him. She says, "Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?"

That is how it is with official story apologists. The evidence mounts into this overwhelming circumstantial case -- from Abel Danger's tracking of Atta, Bush's close connections to bin Laden, PNAC's stated desire for Pearl Harbor, My Pet Goat, Rumsfeld being deliberately out of the loop for some 30 minutes on 9/11, Marvin Bush in charge of WTC security, military exercises that confuse the military on 9/11, the obvious desire to start an Iraq war, the demand of several administration nut jobs on 9/11 to invade Iraq, the melting towers, the collapse of WTC7 -- it goes on and on.

Academics, foreign (German and British) intelligence and military officials, independent journalists -- begin to break the official silence and consensus.

And finally there are increasingly available photos like this showing squibs systematically exploding up the side of WTC7:

http://www.911hoax.com/gwtc7_1.asp?strPage=wtc7_1&intPage=60&PageNum=60

And yet the official story apologists refuse to even discuss this evidence civilly.

Their reaction, which seems driven by the psychological syndrome of positivie dissonance is almost as creepy as the unanswered questions about 9/11 itself.

[screembloodymurder]

143. Even Bush haters refuse to look at the evidence.

I don't get it. What gives. Am I nuts or was this investigation a con job?

[QuettaKid]

144. THOSE are the photos that

did it for me.....if those aren't squibs, then what are they?

[screembloodymurder]

146. Photoshop?

Who knows, but I watch the top of the building and it's the service core that falls first....before anything else even moves. The building comes down like there's nothing below it. That looks like demolition and unless someone went to one hell of a lot of trouble to doctor the video, I want to know why they lied.

[QuettaKid]

151. It's not photoshopped

it's on the original source video, taken the day of the event. As to why they lied......why do you think? Would you admit to mass murder, the destruction of a major american symbol, the psychic wounding of a whole country and the invasion of a sovereign nation!?!? Have you not heard about PNAC and the "new pearl harbour" yet...?

[Qibing Zero]

157. I read that and looked for a 'nominate to greatest' immediately, haha.

Great post.

[BamaBecky]

147. Super! Most Excellent!

[newspeak]

153. and for those that think we should just forget what happened

everything, absolutely everything, this administration has done, has been because 9-11. the war, curbing civil rights, domestic agendas and raiding the treasury has been because of 9-11. Why shouldn't we take a look at the anomolies of that event without people degrading others. It is the ROOT of this administration's agenda.

[BamaBecky]

302. Exactly - "It all connected at the roots"!

[graphixtech]

161. Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC

By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News

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 http://www.wtc7.net whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

(more)
"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.

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."

• 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.



http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
(much more at link)

[Al-CIAda]

162. PNAC toppled the WTC. eom

[still_one]

182. no, it was fundamentalist Muslims

and as much as people would like to rewrite history, that is what it was. bin laden himself took responsibility

[natrat]

192. lol...no it was pnac ...and the war on terror is a crock of shit

[still_one]

198. if you believe look at the history of the middle east

was the first world trade center bombing terror?

was the attack on the Africian embasy terror?

If the Democrats run on this platform not only will they lose, they will lose big

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, but deny it was Islamic Fundamentalists, and you are ignoring reality

[philb]

221. appears you don't follow the news much

1st WTC bombing was a gov't controlled sting operation supposedly
similar strange things about the Oklahoma City bombing

and the Gov't was warned about the Cole plan and didn't stop it
etc.

and also fully warned about 9/11 and complicity was documented by testimony to the 9/11 Commission
http://www.flcv.com/warnings.html

there was a lot of interaction between the various parties in these events

[still_one]

229. * and company had adequate warnings

from both the intelligence, and previous administrations, and he ignored them

but to deny that Islamic Fundamentalists were NOT responsible is wrong and false

[Wilms]

193. .

:rofl:

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

219. then what you are saying is that Clinton

Richard Clark, John O'Neil, who died in the world trade center, and every past administration is in on this conspirisy

Let any candidate run with that on their platform

[philb]

222. seems you are very confused

He didn't suggest that

[BlueEyedSon]

236. Link to OBL admission, pls?

[hang a left]

242. You are correct...

And they were commandeered by a fanatic in a cave with a satellite phone and a laptop from Afghanistan.

:rofl:

SUCKER

[petgoat]

283. Are you sure that was bin Laden?

I haven't investigated the videos myself, but some say the man who
confessed in the Jalalibad tape had a much broader nose than Osama, and
others say the sound was so lousy they can't be sure what he was saying anyway.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/binladinvideo.html

Jim Hoffman appears to believe that the 2004 election Osama was not the
real Osama--a possibility that never occurred to me.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/911revealed/

Also, even if Osama CLAIMED responsibility, that doesn't prove he did
it. People confess to things they never did for lots of reasons.

[burythehatchet]

244. Have you seen The Power of Nightmares?

Ties things together very nicely

[tk2kewl]

163. BYU

:D Gotta be a tough sell in Utah

[Endangered Specie]

164. Since when is a physics professor qualified to comment

on a Civil Engineering question?

[tk2kewl]

165. It was simply a miracle that they fell that way...

God saved lower Manhattan by making the towers fall straight into their footprints

[Marnieworld]

168. You forgot the sarcasm smiley

I almost thought you were serious.

[tk2kewl]

171. I was

:sarcasm: :P

[Endangered Specie]

251. Thats because gravity tends to act straight down...

DUH

[Dora]

166. Oh, please.

Civil Engineering depends on the laws of physics. Even I know that.

[reprobate]

167. The rules of civil engineering are based on the laws of physics.

For every action.......

Force equals mass times.....

Rotational force at point A is....

You know, that kind of thing.

[EVDebs]

178. But in 'Bushworld' even science is a classified subject

and you'll need a top secret security clearance just to discuss it.

BTW, I wonder what Eschelon is making of all this on DU ! Does NSA have a special place for us ?

[zann725]

208. In Shrubworld, "science" is scoffed at, & won't be taught in schools soon

...if they have their way. Or at least not "science" as-we-know-it.

[Endangered Specie]

254. That is just horribly oversimplified...

Biology is based on the laws of physics, does that mean you are gonna believe the number of physicists who say evolution is impossible?


There is a world of difference between theory and pratice.

[screembloodymurder]

172. When the structures fall defies physics.

If WTC building #7 wasn't demolished, I'll eat my civil engineering degree.

[still_one]

186. I agree, all evidence has shown it was the excessive heat

from the burning jet fuel

[screembloodymurder]

197. Explain #7

The 911 Commission Report couldn't.

[philb]

211. No evidence I've seen suggested this?? fires were not hot long

Firefighters: WTC2 fires small and controllable http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/08/04/wtc.firefighters /

NIST: gas burned up within 10 minutes and no prolonged hot fires
http://thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/nyregion/09TAPE.html?ex=1118548800&en=3a5271dc64a05dfa&ei=5070&oref=login http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/911physics.php http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=45004&mesg_id=45133 http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/wtc.htm

[we can do it]

230. Thanks - You Beat Me To It

Sheesh people - try THINKING- its not painful

[Beam Me Up]

245. Anyone who believes jet fuel can melt steel isn't thinking clearly.

You can test this theory yourself.

You can burn a piece of steel in kerosene 24/7 for a WEEK--I don't care how long--it will never melt. It won't even weaken. You can put it under as much stress as you like. NADA.

WHY? Because jet fuel (essentially kerosene) doesn't burn hot enough to effect its molecular structure in any significant way. You can throw in all the plastic and carpeting and other office furniture you want, won't make any difference. Add a bellows and that will help but until it gets red hot--nothing significant will change.

To weaken steel sufficiently to cause catastrophic failure one would need at least an additional 1,000 degrees beyond the hottest temperature jet fuel burns concentrated at key points.

Where is that extra energy going to come from?

Where did it come from? That is the question.

[Endangered Specie]

253. Steel does not have to be melted to lose its strength.

[Beam Me Up]

263. Didn't say it did.

But it DOES have to get far hotter than jet fuel burns, and it has to be either SUSTAINED over a long period of time or it has to be FOCUSED at strategic points. One or the other. The situation in the WTC buildings fits neither.

There's no argument here. It is a testable hypothesis that can be proven both in the laboratory and in field conditions.

But even if steel COULD weaken to catastrophic failure due to fire, this does not explain either a) symmetric failure (as opposed to asymmetric failure which would have produced a toppling tower) or b) failure at free-fall speed (in contradiction to the conservation of momentum Ð a fundamental Law of Physics).

Where jet fuel can not account for these observable phenomena, explosives does.

Anyone who still believes the WTC collapsed due to fire is in denial.

[Spinzonner]

289. Faulty analysis

The steel girders did not have to melt. The cross-girders that supported the floors AND HELD the external vertical girders that supported the building merely need to separate from each other. And the failure of the bolts due to heat and stress, and shock is not unlikely. And note that not ALL would need to fail simultaneously. Only a sufficient number that the remaining ones were insufficient to keep things together in a particular area. The failure would then increase stress on the remaining system and propogate the failure.

The bolts holding the girders together ARE a STRATEGIC POINT. In the WTC design, the external girders were the support of the building. The inner core had very little support function. Once those girders began to bow out and separate suffciiently the process was inevitable and irreversible.

The failure could have begun asymmetrically but lacked sufficient lateral displacement on one side before the failure propogated across and around the initial floor(s) of failure and proceeded as a vertical failure that behaved symmetrically because the energy of the fall engendered by the cumulative weight of the floors above applied increasingly simultaneously across the whole floor and building cross section.

[Beam Me Up]

304. And it all went down at free fall speed exactly how?

Talk about faulty analysis.

The amount of energy needed to sever the steel girders at regular intervals and turn the reinforced concrete to powder can not be accounted for by the weight of the structure in free fall.

[Spinzonner]

305. Where did you get the idea it was in free fall ?

Much less the proof of it.

Individual pieces that broke loose and away from the mass of the building may have ended up in free-fall and dust and other particulate matter may have even been suspended, but the main part of the building pancaked onto itself and successively collapsed floors from the (near) top down. The compression from that would have easily destroyed the buildings materials.

For the building to have gone down in freefall would have required destruction from the bottom up, with entirely different dynamics, not the top down, and there is absolutely no evidence of that.

[janedoe]

306. Perhaps it all failed at the same time.

Why would the bottom need to explode, first? If the entire tower was blown up all at the same time, there is no control issue. It all turns to dust.

[Spinzonner]

307. To send the building as a whole into free fall

would have required pulling the bottom out from under it, as it were. And even that would not cause a free fall. The bottom levels would crush and the shock and destabiliszation would likely cause a pancaking from the bottom up.

And there is no visual evidence that a widespread, uniform explosion occurred throughout the height of the building. So why would you propose it. That's even less credible than the prior posters theory.

Stick to facts, not adding more conspiracy theories that contradict them.

[janedoe]

320. Distractions

You seem to have gotten tangled up in your own contradictions, and then tried playing the "CT card," and never got around to answering my question. But, I'm sure you realize this. You were just checking to see if I would. :-)

Perhaps you will find someone who has time to play.
Sorry, I don't have time to play. :hi:

[Beam Me Up]

309. "no evidence of that" is very inaccurate.

Seismic recordings, eyewitness testimony, and two videos of WTC 1 indicate a large detonation occurred at the base of the building fourteen seconds before its collapse.

As for free-fall, watch a video of one of the towers or building 7 and time it. The towers fall in about 10 seconds. At that rate a 100+ story building is collapsing at ten floors per second. Building 7's rate of decent is slightly slower. 47 stories in just under 7 seconds. In either case that is only slightly slower than free-fall.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/

[EVDebs]

301. Especially since WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane.....baffling, huh ?

[philb]

232. Who do you think teaches Civil Engineers about the kind of basic

science that's involved here?
Engineers have to take and understand a lot of Physics.

[Endangered Specie]

252. Umm, Civil Engineers teach Civil engineers...

Physiscts to not study, in the kind of detail and mindframe that Engineers do the physics that apply to CE.


Its not just so plain and simple to construct a structure.

[no_hypocrisy]

169. Link not working.

[merh]

189. Here ya go.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/


Steven E. Jones
Professor

Research Group: Atomic, Molecular, and Optical
Specialty: Metal-catalyzed fusion, Archaeometry, Solar energy
Group Meeting:
Spring/Sum 2005 Tuesday, 9:30 am, ESC, Room N288

Current work in metal-catalyzed fusion

We are currently conducting research on deuteron and proton beams impinging on various metals. Meet with us Mondays at 2:00pm in room N288 of the ESC to learn more.



Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse on 9-11-2001? http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[cookiebird]

170. Bucking for Tenure?

Just wondering if this guy is tenured yet? One of the best ways to get published in the academy is to demonstrate "cutting edge" interpretations of the accepted explanations...wonder if his article documents any explosive residue in the towers? Probably not...
Skeptical, :tinfoilhat:

[Dora]

180. This kind of "cutting edge" doesn't get anyone tenure.

We just published an excellent book about the savings and loan scandal and how the scams were structured, names of those involved, how the political system supported it, etc...

The author of this book was up for tenure, had glowing reviews of his work and research, great student evaluations - in short, an excellent addition to any university's permanent teaching faculty.

He didn't get tenure. It turns out that Somebody knew Somebody Else who didn't like this man's truthtelling, a letter was written to the university's administration... TENURE DENIED.

[glitch]

202. He's still got his soul. There should be some universities out there still

interested in truth.

What was the name of his book?

[Dora]

210. The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One

The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry


The author has appeared on a cable bookshow a couple of times... I don't have tv so I don't remember the name of the show, but you may have seen him. I don't want it to seem like I'm pushing the book, so I'll leave it at that.

[glitch]

268. Thanks - not that I need another book to add to the pile, but the S&L

scandal is an important one, this sounds interesting.

[we can do it]

201. Where/When Would They Have Looked For the Residue?

In the Rubble/Evidence that Was Hauled Away ASAP?

:sarcasm:

Keep your head in the sand.

[John Q. Citizen]

207. This guy appears to be tenured about 100 times over. Check out

his CV

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/bergeson/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm

Your dismissive conclusions about his qualifications and his motives without any information to jump to those conclusions doesn't indicate skeptisism but rather a resistence to contemplate the ramifications of his current research paper.

Don't confuse a closed mind with skeptisism, please.

[mom cat]

267. The debris was taken away too fast and no one thought to check

for explosives.

[jkappy]

297. if not tenured, he's fired!! n/t

[LoKnLoD]

173. Why does he hate Amerikkka and the soldiers?

Seriously, reading this blew me away. I live in Utah and I find it hard to believe BYU even let this out. It is a Mormom church run college and the Momo's are in the Repuke's pocket for years. Can't wait to see Orrin spin this! It is what I've believed since soon after 9/11.

[wakeme2008]

174. At one time the SHEEP believed EVERYTHING

that came out of Bush's mouth. Now the polls show they do not trust him, so IMHO articles like this will be taken more serious than at one point.

IMHO those building were blown up. The planes were only part of what happened that day.

[bigworld]

175. He's only commenting on WTC building 7

... not the twin towers. There are some questions regarding WTC7.. check out http://www.wtc7.net/articles/elitewatch_7wtc.html.

A little tin-foil hattish, but nothing surprises me these days.

jim

[Nikki Stone 1]

185. A lot of us watched 7 go down and wondered how the hell it happened

Unless that magic bullet from Dallas found its way into the structural supports about 10,000 times.

[EVDebs]

190. The planes didn't hit WTC 7 did they ?

So...maybe Ptech, that Saudi software firm with intell/FAA computer access along with the wargames (Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, etc ) all fit into this mix.

I note that the media doesn't mention ANY of this info.

[Mister K]

176. I only have one question....

Who was on the Demo team?

[screembloodymurder]

200. Why don't you ask the CIA?

They were in the building.

[still_one]

177. Not true

the fuel melted the girders inside the wtc, THAT IS WHAT CAUSED THE COLLAPSE. The buildings were standing for some time before they collapsed which is more in line with melting steel. When the WTC was built, they declined to reinforce the structure with asbestos due to environmental concerns.

There is more evidence against his hypothisis then for it

because someone says something does NOT make it true

[Mister K]

181. ...and what about building 7

If you look at the video of the collapse, looks like controlled demolition to me.

[still_one]

196. the heat from the jet fuel MELTED the girders

it collasped upon itself

That is what happened

[The Stranger]

217. Why do you keep posting the same thing over and over?

Do you not believe what you are posting, so you must repeat it over and over?

[philb]

225. thats ludicrous; jet engines are made of steel and the fires there

much hotter; gasoline fires can't melt steel;
where is your evidence that gas fires could melt huge steel beams?

[John Q. Citizen]

247. building 7 wasn't hit and there was no jet fuel. Yet it collapsed

just like the other two. And it was, what 2 or 3 blocks away from the twin towers.

WSo the jet fuel hypotysis for the collapse of the twin towers has to be called into question becasue building 7 had an identical collapse yet no jet fuel.

What would account for that?

[ixion]

183. pour jet fuel on commercial grade steel and tell me how fast it melts

I'll be waiting...but I don't expect to hear back from you, because it won't happen. ;-)

[still_one]

213. At extreme heat steel will lose its structural strength

You had thousands of gallons of aviation fuel burning at 1830 F

Steel loses half its structural strength at 500 to 600 degrees Centigrade, 930 to 1100 Fahrenheit. By the laws of nature it was destinted to collapse.

[still_one]

227. I should not have used the word melt, but weaken

the failure of the steel was due to loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

[Dora]

184. It's my understanding that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.

Of course, I may be wrong. It does happen.

[Beetwasher]

195. Doesn't Need To Melt, Only Weaken

It only needs to heat it enough to soften it so it bends more easily so it no longer supports the massive weight above it.

[still_one]

220. exactly

You had thousands of gallons of aviation fuel burning at 1830 F

[philb]

226. WTC fires were not very hot for very long; not enough to melt steel beams

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=59149&mesg_id=59168

[still_one]

235. you don't have to lose all the steel beams to collapse

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell.

The floor below could not support the ten floors (or more) above crashing down on them. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds. The building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity.

There was too much inertia to fall in any direction other than straight down.

[Kailassa]

259. You seem quite happy to admit that fuel cannot melt steel.

So how do you account for the fact that the steel actually was melted?

• 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.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

[still_one]

262. first of all I am NOT happy about the whole thing

second I should not have used the word melted, I should have said weakened, third the fire on the top floors, and the heat weakened the steel joints, and the floors where the fire occurred collapsed on the next floor, which could NOT contain the weight, thus creating a domino effect

[still_one]

214. The aviation fuel was burning at 1830 degrees fahrenheit

Steel loses half its structural strength at 500 to 600 degrees Centigrade, 930 to 1100 Fahrenheit. By the laws of nature it was destinted to collapse.

[we can do it]

238. You Are Correct -

[Barrett808]

191. Better way to come at the conspiracy: Mohammed Atta

http://madcowprod.com
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org

[screembloodymurder]

204. Are you saying the steel was not fireproofed?

As for asbestos, the environmental firm hired to sample after 911 was thrown off the job for warning workers of the asbestos hazard.

[pdurod1]

205. The burning fuel doesn't have to melt the steel...

just weaken it, structural integrity is compromised, the acceleration of gravity wins.

[screembloodymurder]

237. Name another steel framed building that collapsed due to fire.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but it's not common and building #7 did not have raging fires.

[we can do it]

239. None - EVER and 3 happened in NYC all on the same day

Here's only one example.

http://freepress2005.blogspot.com/2005/02/madrids-burning-building-stands-world.html

[rinsd]

258. Name another structural steel building fire that was close to the WTC?

If we haven't had a building with a fire that bad, how does the fact none have collapsed prove anything?

[pox americana]

264. First Interstate Bank fire, May 4, 1988 .

Much lower in structure, hotter fire, burned longer, involved more floors, structural steel unscathed.



http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_1stInterstateFire/050488_InterstateFire.htm

And many, many others.

[rinsd]

265. Fair enough....

Of course a plane didn't crash into that building.

[pox americana]

266. Neither explains the collapse of the floors below

the crashes and therein lies the rub.

[we can do it]

241. So - What pulverized the concrete in midair?

Before the towers hit the ground.

[Kevin Fenton]

248. Jet fuel

cannot melt steel. No way, no how.

"the fuel melted the girders inside the wtc,"
It didn't and I bet you can't find one decent link that says it does.

[ixion]

179. I have been saying this since it happened...

I remember watching them fall, and noticing the speed and symmetry with which the fell and thinking that it was identical to the controlled demolitions I've seen in the past.

I mean, laws of physics and of averages aside, it was obvious, IMO.

[screembloodymurder]

187. On Veterans Day, is it too much to ask Americans to insist on the truth.

This article by BYU physics professor Steven Jones is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation of the 911 WTC building collapses. He is asking that the investigation be guided by scientists to insure it is free of political constraints. Read the article and watch the referenced video clips.



http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[Crayson]

188. WORKING LINK HERE

<http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy>

then click the link there

[sam the dawg]

194. not new

other professors said this shortly after the collapse, and then became strangely quiet. this one will be quiet too or be accidented.

[toopers]

203. I have not see the entire video of the attack.

However, were there multiple explosions in the towers. I thought that there was just one explosion in each tower when the plan hit. How difficult would it be to time the "planted" bombs explosions with the impact of the planes?

[screembloodymurder]

209. This is not speculation. The man is asking for an investigation.

More money and time was spent investigating Monica's dress than the collapse of the towers. Why?

[thebigidea]

212. yeah, because collapsing WTC 7 was soooo vital to the Bush admin

after all, they would've NEVER drummed up enough support for their wars if that great, iconic building, WTC 7, wasn't demolished.

fucking WHY?

WHY bother?

"insurance money." some folks mutter. What, the Towers weren't enough? Why the additional risk for a pissant building that isn't even mentioned by anyone but internet obsessives?

[screembloodymurder]

215. Here's why. The tenent list.

Building 7's short list of tenants consisted entirely of government and financial institutions.

Financial institutions
Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
Standard Chartered Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
First State Management Group
TT Hartford Insurance Group
American Express Bank International
National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)

Government agencies
Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
US Secret Service
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

The collapse of Building 7 destroyed thousands of SEC casefiles of ongoing investigations into companies such as WorldCom.

[QuettaKid]

218. uhm, excuse me but have you checked the

tenant list for WTC7?

""Built in 1985, it was formerly the headquarters of the junk-bond firm Drexel Burnham Lambert, which contributed to the Savings and Loans collapse, prompting the $500-billion taxpayer-underwritten bailout of the latter 1980s. At the time of its destruction, it exclusively housed government agencies and financial institutions. It contained offices of the IRS, Secret Service, and SEC.""

http://wtc7.net/background.html

[philb]

228. WTC7 was abandoned before it got major damage or fires

yet with all these important tenants, they didn't shut down the electrical and fuel oil equipment to protect the building; didn't try to protect important records, information, etc.

and someone cut of the fire alarm system the night before 9/11

[screembloodymurder]

260. Is that a fact?

Someone cut of the fire alarm system the night before 9/11? Where did you see this?

[oxbow]

216. MEDIA BLITZ!--cause the Truth would set us free!

The time is right to change the conversation. We need to stop talking about Alito, stop talking about secret prisons, about Iraq even. 9-11 is what led to all this, and 9-11 is what will end it. We need to send this to AAR, Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, anyone who might possibly broadcast it.

What I would love is for the DU activist Corps to pick this up and run with it. Whaddaya say, Admins? If we wait any longer, it will be time for midterm elections and the opportunity will be wasted.

[screembloodymurder]

223. A concerted effort to get this article to enough people

would force an investigation. If enough people demand the truth, we will get the truth. Email this article to your friends and ask them to pass it on.

[LoKnLoD]

231. I sent it

to John Conyers!

[Mr. Peanut]

234. Does Jones express an opinion about what really hit the Pentagon?

There are also questions about what hit the Pentagon. So many surveillance cameras are pointed at the Pentagon, yet none of those videos have been released. The only pics I've seen is a flaky animated .gif from a parking lot camera with at least one frame missing at the exact time whatever it was hit the building (link below).

I agree, making such polemic accusations, he's walking on the razor's edge with regard to his tenure.

http://www.digitalsword.co.uk/impactvideo.htm

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/passengers.html

[screembloodymurder]

240. He's only asking for a scientific investigation FCS.

He's not making accusations. He's just pointing out that the fall speed of building #7 approaches that of a free fall. It's improbable given the laws of physics. How improbable? Try closing your eyes, typing with your nose, and coming up with a complete sentence.

[John Q. Citizen]

243. Why not read the article and find out the answer to your question?

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

That's it!

You will see if he expresses an opinion.

It also appears Dr. Jones has tenure about 100 times over.

If you Goggle his name you can find his cv about 5 or 6 down on the first page.

He makes no polemic accusations, but he does make some very reasonable observations.

[hang a left]

246. Where is MercATC or whatever his name is?

Isn't he going to weigh in on this?

[graphixtech]

249. 2KUTV news interview with BYU professor Steven E. Jones

Excellent video interview news clip and story:

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html

[pauldp]

250. Thank you. So is a CBS affiliate story too out there for a GD thread?

:wtf:
That professor seems like a kooky conspiracy theorist to me. Probably believes in crop circles too.
:eyes:

[Endangered Specie]

255. There are physicists who say evolution is impossible...

y'all going to believe them too?

[pauldp]

256. So what was it about the collapse of 7 that did not look like CD?

I'm still waiting on that one.

[pox americana]

257. A helluva lot more creationists believe the official

collapse theory endorsed by Saint George.

[screembloodymurder]

261. Why ridicule?

What's your agenda? The man is simply asking for a new unfettered investigation.

[petgoat]

279. believe them too?

I'll listen up to the point that I find a fatal flaw in their argument.

[Name removed]

269. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

270. Moved to the 9/11 Forum in 5.....4.....3.....2......

1.

[drdtroit]

271. Wow, was that a speed record for moving it?

Now let's wait for the "professional" disinformationists!

[texpatriot2004]

272. I blinked and it was moved. Thanks for putting it out there though

I don't get to this forum often enough and I would have missed it. It's great.

[number6]

206. The BYU Physics Professor and Deseret News

My Prediction is this will disappear by Monday.

I wouldn't be surprised if this Professor makes a statement
next week "oops I'm wrong, made a mistake ...bla bla

lets just say BYU is the Red-est University in the Red-est County
in the Red-est STATE.

I hope I'm wrong. :smoke:

I recommend sending e-mails to D-news in support of the Proffessor.

mailto: [email protected] Elaine Jarvik wrote the article

[screembloodymurder]

273. Do you think this Mormon is a moran in disguise?

Could be a plant. I must admit, I hope his paper has a much more thorough analysis, but I agree we need a real investigation.

[Sandpiper]

233. BYU Physics Professor thinks Bombs, not Planes toppled the WTC

Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC

By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News

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 http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

<snip>

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.

<snip>

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

[JackieO]

290. BYU professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC

BYU professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC

By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News
Thursday, November 10, 2005

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.



http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

[Ian David]

291. How many times must the mods delete this story today? n/t

[JackieO]

294. if you don't see it in LBN and don't realize it's already been censored

maybe DU should add something to its LBN rules about verboten topics?

[dapper]

292. Hopefully not this time.

eom

[greyl]

293. Jones is a dingleberry. I think he's a newbie at this subject.

Since when are buildings supposed to topple over (like a tree) ?
Never, that's when.
Here's a working link to his draft:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[Name removed]

295. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pox americana]

312. Gotta love how the spinmeisters make up their own laws of gravity

as they go along. Faith-based physics at its finest! :)