Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC

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.

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

..that this has gotten, especially in regard to the things that the 9/11 commission helped to cover up.

Let's please not relegate this to the bunker people. This is a fundamental element of the larger strategy that the PNAC MIHOP'd or LIHOP'd upon us.

THINK about it.

K&R

Did you ask about the other things he believes?

What a pile of utter crap.

But it does keep the focus off what really happened.

They ridicule any suggestion that 911 could be an inside job. Are these people plants?....put here to shout "conspiracy" on every thread.

The registered users are infected with "thought leaders" of fundamentally conservative viewpoints. They try to disguise themselves by sheepdipping themselves with typical DU lexicon in other areas. One is, "well I was against the Iraq war, but I'm for the Iranian war."

I don't find any of the analyses favoring the aircraft impact 911 commission version of the collapses persuasive in the least.

In my opinion this site is heavily monitored by defense industry or corporate communications and information warfare types.

of the WTC towers the planes would hit? Fancy flying too!

where the planes impacted. How would they know to pre-plant the explosives on those floors?

With pulse-modulated radio control you could plant your explosives ahead
of time, and then choose your pulse sequence to start collapse at any
chosen floor.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

The official explanation is that this was caused by fire.

Discuss.

On edit: here's the corrected link for the BYU paper.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

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

click on "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse on 9-11-2001?" at the bottom of the page.

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

I'm sure the airlines would like to know what happened to their airplanes, the passengers and crews.

If you ever went to the WTC towers while they were standing, the overwhelming impression to it from within was that of a warehouse. And all documentaries I've seen on their architecture show that they were in fact built as one would a warehouse of 100 stories- extremely efficient/minimal of use of building material with little effort or money expended to give the structure any ability to withstand an unusual stress. Ability to withstand 120 mph hurricane winds would have been the standard.

If you know the architecture and weight of the floors, a 'pancaking' collapse down the center axis of the buildings was the logical outcome of how the load buttressing was going to fail.

down elevator shafts and burned so hot as to melt all 47 of the massive support columns in the 7th sub-basement?

The 2nd plane struck the tower near the corner of the building, missing most and maybe all the supports columns. Most of the fuel load burned outside the building. The starboard engine was found 2 blocks away. Yet this building came down first and fell into its own foot print.

Exactly as the other tower that was struck almost square and was struck first. What is wrong with picture?

The hit on the corner took out more of the load carrying support around the periphery of the floors hit, plus enough of the center supports. Then, the fire in both in effect broke the cross elements transferring load from the inner to the outer support ring. There being less of the outer supports left in that tower, it took a lot fewer of the cross elements breaking to increase the net load on the inner support rings to collapsing. There are the pictures that show the outer support beams of the relevant floors bulging outwards as the interior support columns went into failure. (If the outer rings had failed first you get the buildings collapsing to one side.)

The jet fuel wasn't the major fuel source for anything, though it was a very picturesque element when it exploded. As for the jet engine, you do the math of how far an object falls when released given an initial horizontal velocity of 220 mph (~300 feet per second) (the minimal flight velocity of airliners) and released at an altitude of 1200 feet (~90 stories). It takes about six seconds for an object to fall that far down, so I get a maximal distance of an element of the airplane hitting the street of 1500-2000 feet from the base of the Towers. Considering the flimsy walls of the WTC as imposing the only and small braking force on clumpy, very heavy and relatively small, objects like the jet engines, I'd expect some of the engines to have flown close to the arc for maximal distance.

The WTC burning/smouldering, if you forget, was the result of a hugh amount of low quality fuel interspersed and covered by a large amount of concrete, which doesn't transfer heat. The basements of the WTC were a concrete 'bathtub' that didn't let heat out. There was a lot of iron in the mix, but that just transferred heat between adjacent regions of rubble, not releasing it with any efficiency to the atmosphere or absorbing much of it. Thousands of tons of paper (= chemically treated wood) and office furniture burned up. The WTC rubble piles were in effect inefficient concrete kilns fired with wood and plastic. In Ancient Times people got metal white hot and malleable in stone kilns fired with wood. Melting temperature I'll leave to an engineer to explain, but burning stuff in small spaces with inadequate convection currents to carry off heat means remarkably high temperatures locally.

The burning of Rome in 63 AD- all wood, really- has left archaeological traces with bits of partially melted bronze stuff left among the detritus. The firestorms of e.g. the bombing of Dresden got so hot (and the incendiaries were only a tiny bit of the fuel for those) that people didn't just die in some of the air raid bunkers- the number of people in them had to be estimated from the amount of bone dust found in them later, which was all that didn't gassify and get sucked out in the atmospheric underpressure and heat.

behind these nonsensical "explanations." Look at a construction photo sometime. They weren't built out of toothpicks.

p.s. welcome to the 9-11 forum!

1. The WTC towers were held up by the 47 central columns, not the out side ones. That is why the central columns were so massive compared to the out side columns.

2. "...but burning stuff in small spaces with inadequate convection currents to carry off heat means remarkably high temperatures locally."
You need continuous source of air, i.e., oxygen for a fire to burn hot. You would not have that in the 7th sub-basement. Any fire would quickly consume all the oxygen and either go out or just smolder. In other words, it could not get near hot enough in the 7th sub-basement to melt/soften any of the 47 support columns.

Hell they couldn't even stop a passport.

A pancaking collapse should have left the lower forty stories or so of the core standing.

The link you give http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html has a period at the end of it (because it is the end of a sentence). Unfortunately it is registering as part of the URL and appears to be dead.

... that the guy's wrong... but I believe this is the same Stephen Jones that brought us cold fusion. :)

That was Pons at the University of Utah. Jones coined the term "Cold Fusion" was involved with muon-catalyzed cold fusion experiments and attempts to replicate the Utah findings.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html

http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/physics/cold-fusion-wop.html

... I'd forgotten about Stanley Pons, though, who seemed to be the snake oil salesman in the cold fusion misadventure. :)

Cheers.

WTC? A cousin or brother? I can't remember. I imagine there are lots of theories out there. What do most people think is the most feasible?

Get's forced against his will by Thai hookers into having sex in his hotel room.

Marvin Bush was on the board of the company that was in charge of security at the WTC...you know THAT same company that John O'Neill was given a job with after he left the FBI in disgust after Junior told him to: "Back off Bin-Laden."

JUST another one of those BFEE coincidences though I'm sure.

I googled 'bush wtc' and the first name that came up was neal. I didn't check any further.

With so much crime in one family, it's hard to keep track sometimes.

If all of the 9-11 target building were pre-wired for demolition. What was the target for flight 73 and are the explosive charges still in place?

I have sent it to colleagues. It's becoming clearer why some people are pushing (un)intelligent design.

I never belived the official explanations - not from day one.
Edit -add and headline