something I came across today..

[MotoXcowboy]

I'm not sure what to make of this guys theory.

Repost

Truth In Prophecy


this is HUGE. these claims are based on nothing but science and do not attempt to point blame or come up with alternative theories about how the operation was carried out. his findings are in essence proof of controlled demolition and therefore that the official story is incorrect.

Deseret Morning News | November 11, 2005

By Elaine Jarvik

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 here.

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.

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic, " he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all, " Jones writes.

As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation."

Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.

Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' "

In a 9, 000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11, " by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments: • The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."

• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.

• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

• Steel supports were "partly evaporated, " but it would require temperatures near 5, 000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal, " Jones says.

• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.

Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you, " Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding."

Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September.

Jones says he would like the government to release 6, 899 photographs and 6, 977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.

SEE HIS REPORT HERE

[cheferson]

Should read 9/11 revealed by Rowland morgan and Ian Henshall

[Mike P]

You know, since 1993, the first time someone tried to blow the place up, an army of Port Authority cops have patrolled those buildings 25/7. 34 of them died on 9/11. I'm sure maybe one of them must have saw strange looking boxes being moved into the buildings, and some funny looking stuff with wires attached being strapped to the building's structural members. And I guess none of the army of engineers and ordinary maintenence workers who are in every nook and cranny there every day ever noticed those mushy blobs of plastique with wires attached on the beams, either. A lot of them were also killed on 9/11. So they stayed in there knowing the place was wired with C-4 or Semtex, I imagine.

Yeah, and the lunar landings in 1969 were staged too.

JHC I can't believe anyone could take this bull%$%$%$%$ seriously.

[Raven]

it looked like it went down like a controlled explosion though and having worked in the quarries and watching numerous "shots" of blasting granite into gravel , and all those blow up the building shows...
...it makes one certainly wonder....


what i did hear though....via the underground,was that a huge sum of money was transfered a few minutes before the first jet crashed into the building...

and like the sign says in my doctors office,....

if it wasn't documented then it never happened.

[cheferson]

OPeration Northwoods.......

[MoroneSaxatilis]

Originally Posted by Mike P

Yeah, and the lunar landings in 1969 were staged too.

JHC I can't believe anyone could take this bull%$%$%$%$ seriously.

You took the words right outta my mind. I was also gonna mention that alien autopsies were conducted at Area 51, and there were 2 shooters in the grassy knoll in Dallas.

[Bliz]

I dont believe this picture to be doctored, but it does appear that the lower explosion on the right hand side may have been a charge going off... I saw the videos of the colapse and you see these charges going off every four to five floors or so... and in a symmetrical fashion as well...
Why wouldn't the towers topple rather than fall at the speed of gravity if the structure below the impact had fully intact structural steel?...

Makes no sense to me. there should have been at least some resistance there somewhere...

[MoroneSaxatilis]

Originally Posted by Bliz

I dont believe this picture to be doctored, but it does appear that the lower explosion on the right hand side may have been a charge going off... I saw the videos of the colapse and you see these charges going off every four to five floors or so... and in a symmetrical fashion as well...
Why wouldn't the towers topple rather than fall at the speed of gravity if the structure below the impact had fully intact structural steel?...
Makes no sense to me. there should have been at least some resistance there somewhere...

I neither a phycisist nor an engineer, but to my understanding they fell the way they did due to the "pancacke effect". Is that an explosion we're seeing, or simply the escape of air pressure "resistance" from when the floors pancake down on each other. It also seems to me that you answered your own question. How COULD they topple, since the lower floors/grond floors/foundation were intact until they were pancaked by the upper floors, thereby compromising the integrity of the heretofore fully intact structural steel.

[Ed B]

There was a pretty good show on PBS explaining the design and construction of the towers, and how when the upper floors started collapsing the lower floors could not support the weight and the fasteners the structural support points then sheared under the heavy loads of the upper floors falling down upon them. It was an outstanding job by PBS and some of the key engineers of the original project were interviewed.

I can also tell you from my perspective as a mechanical engineer that I or any of my colleagues would never ever comment publicly or in writing on a subject that was not in ones area of expertise. This individual who is supposidly a Physics professor probably knows very little of structural design of buildings. For him to use his knowledge of Physics to try to qualify himself as a valid conspiracy theorist on building demolition is akin to a podiatrist attempting to perform heart surgery. Hey there both doctors right.

I've seen a detailed summary on the world trade center collapse from a symposiom by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. They got into everything from fuel source burn temperatures, fire temperatures, component failures etc.. and I suspect that the American Society of Civil Engineers has studied this failure extensively as well. I would trust judgements by the ASME or ASCE long before I could ever give a conspiracy theorist the time of day. But most people will find it much easier to side with the simple to understand conspiracy theories than muddle through excrutiantingly detailed engineering reports.

I give the BOZO from this university two thumbs down. If he actually does exist though, and this is not just some made up hoax on the internet, I strongly suspect he never had any professional credibility to begin with, so probably felt he had none to lose when he wrote this garbage.

If you really want some good info on this I suspect that searching through the ASME or ASCE information on the world trade center collapse a must better place to start. Unless of course you believe they also might be involved in a massive coverup.

Ed

[stripersnipr]

I'm sure if there were bombs planted in the twin towers the Mothership would have caught the perpertrators on video.