Jump to content


Professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC


QuickGold
 Share

Recommended Posts

Article

 

The physics of 9/11 ? including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell ? prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.

 

In fact, it?s likely that there were ?pre-positioned explosives? in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.

 

In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net? whose research Jones quotes. Jones? article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.

 

?It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings,? BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.

 

Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation ?guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If they had planted bombs at the foundations of the building why would they even go through the risky trouble of hijacking planes and flying them into the buildings? Blowing up the building right away would have caused more casualties (many people did get out after the planes crashed...why would they wait 30 minutes between the plane crash and the bomb detonation? Clearly they would not want to give people the chance to evacuate). Also, to plant bombs at a buildings foundation (enough to bring it down) is not something that could be done under the radar - ever seen the implosion of old buildings? It takes quite a crew to set something like that up. The previous bombing was a small explosion that never even had the pretext of bringing the towers down.

 

I think its safe to say that this 'theory' is bs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, to plant bombs at a buildings foundation (enough to bring it down) is not something that could be done under the radar - ever seen the implosion of old buildings? It takes quite a crew to set something like that up. The previous bombing was a small explosion that never even had the pretext of bringing the towers down.

 

 

Well, you're also talking about crews wanting to do it in a safe context and with as little spread of the explosion of it's dust as possible. THAT takes time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, to plant bombs at a buildings foundation (enough to bring it down) is not something that could be done under the radar - ever seen the implosion of old buildings? It takes quite a crew to set something like that up. The previous bombing was a small explosion that never even had the pretext of bringing the towers down.

 

 

Well, you're also talking about crews wanting to do it in a safe context and with as little spread of the explosion of it's dust as possible. THAT takes time.

 

That is true, but it also requires that the explosive be put in several key locations. And it takes alot of explosive to bring a buiding of that size down.

I just don't buy it because even if they did manage somehow to plant all that explosive there, then why use the planes? Or why not detonate it at the same time (or close to it) that the planes crashed? From a terrorists' perspective it makes no sense to give 30 minutes time for people to evacuate if you had already strategically planted explosives at the foundations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, to plant bombs at a buildings foundation (enough to bring it down) is not something that could be done under the radar - ever seen the implosion of old buildings? It takes quite a crew to set something like that up. The previous bombing was a small explosion that never even had the pretext of bringing the towers down.

 

 

Well, you're also talking about crews wanting to do it in a safe context and with as little spread of the explosion of it's dust as possible. THAT takes time.

 

That is true, but it also requires that the explosive be put in several key locations. And it takes alot of explosive to bring a buiding of that size down.

I just don't buy it because even if they did manage somehow to plant all that explosive there, then why use the planes? Or why not detonate it at the same time (or close to it) that the planes crashed? From a terrorists' perspective it makes no sense to give 30 minutes time for people to evacuate if you had already strategically planted explosives at the foundations.

 

That's a good point.

 

I still think that it's a possibility and nothing more. Plus, it's more symbolic with the planes hitting. Then, you have people going down into the building to escape and BOOM! You set off the bombs and more people die. A two stage attack. You kill more people, you have that extrordinary footage of the planes hitting the building and then you have the buildings fall with that one two punch.

 

I'm still on the skeptical side until it's proven. And it's only a matter of time until some nut gets ahold of this and blames our government for blowing the bottom out AFTER the terrorist plane hit, so we can justify going to war in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just playing along here...

 

Someone mentioned that if the bombs were pre positioned, why would they hijack the planes and sacrifice themselves if it wasn't necessary...

 

Well, it's all about the image attached to the destruction of the towers. Bin Laden wanted to send a message, and let everyone know who was behind the attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has no credibility since he's Mormon, but I've seen a lot in the past on this. Very troubling if its true.

 

And Sandroimbuto, the bombs in question would not have been planted by terrorists...

 

 

 

Let me guess....Bush did it........Your left wing garbage is getting old.

 

 

Never mind that the buildings were made of steel and the burning jet fuel caused the temperature to heat the steel to how many thousand degrees..? Maybe that had something to do with the buildings collapsing? .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has no credibility since he's Mormon, but I've seen a lot in the past on this. Very troubling if its true.

 

And Sandroimbuto, the bombs in question would not have been planted by terrorists...

 

 

 

Let me guess....Bush did it........Your left wing garbage is getting old.

 

 

Never mind that the buildings were made of steel and the burning jet fuel caused the temperature to heat the steel to how many thousand degrees..? Maybe that had something to do with the buildings collapsing? ..... :lol :lol :lol

 

Chewbacca is the least bit left wing. Thanks for insulting us again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has no credibility since he's Mormon, but I've seen a lot in the past on this. Very troubling if its true.

 

And Sandroimbuto, the bombs in question would not have been planted by terrorists...

 

 

Conspiracy Theorists and their Misplaced Egomania (3/19/04)

 

 

So, recently I have had the misfortune of running into several people who not only are convinced that the federal government is conspiring against the public, but are also the type to talk your ear off about it. Isn't it always like that? It?s always the crazy f***s that seem to have a problem shutting the hell up. But before I get ahead of myself, let?s take this bit by bit.

 

I dig conspiracy theorists? squirrelly little bastards with squirrelly little paranoid ideas. But who can?t relate to a little bit of paranoia? There was a three month period when I slept with a loaded .45 in under the blankets because I was sure there was some mal-intentioned lower primate living under my house that wanted to snack on my gull bladder. More on that some other time. But my point is, we all have a tendency to be paranoid at times. It is a survival instinct. It has been ingrained into us genetically?and for good reason. After all, it is pretty hard for the lion to sneak up on the paranoid caveman. And thus, paranoia was born into the human race millennia ago.

 

But certain ideas and concepts go beyond this evolutionary need for human paranoia and cross into the territory of ?stupid f***ing sh*t.? For instance, a popular accusation of all these creepy conspiracy freaks is that the government is slowly poisoning the public with cancer-causing agents that they surreptitiously inject into the water systems, the atmosphere and even into our double-ply Charmin toilet paper. So tell me you silly fruits, what does the government gain from giving us cancer of the ringmeat? ?Oh, well it?s so that we get dependent on government subsidized drugs.?

 

 

Hey! That guy is poisoning the city water supply! No, wait, that?s the pool boy cleaning my pool. Nevermind.

 

 

 

Thank God we have mental ninjas like this one keeping nefarious governmental agents in check. Nothing gets by this ass-clown. Go Conspiracy-Militia-Man!

 

Really? You slapsticks actually think some bigwig government agent thought he could balance the national debt of seven trillion dollars by charging me thirty bucks a month for my anti-cancer anal cream that will negate the effects of my poisoned toilet paper? What the f*** are you people thinking? The only individuals benefiting from that are the a**hole MDs charging me stupid co-pays to fiddle with my calamari ring after making me wait for 45 minutes in the 1970?s era waiting room.

 

But here is what I REALLY love about conspiracy theorists? They are always douche bags. They are always the sacks of sh*t that have NOTHING the government would want. They have no money, no power, no influence and more importantly no common sense. But they all want you to believe that their tiny wads of grey matter, clogged with bong resin and latent pockets of LSD, have pieced together the subtle bits of an intricate governmental conspiracy. How come no one with an advanced degree shares your opinions? How come no one with a steady job shares your views? Well it?s not because they are all blind sheep following the G-man?s suggestive lead. It is because they have a f***ing ounce of common sense!

 

If you dirty, unshaven shits put half the energy you put into fabricating your paranoid delusions into doing something constructive, every city in this damn country would be a clean, well-greased cog in the national machine. All you f***ers need to sit down to a nice hearty meal of sloth-sh*t and dig in. Maybe a mouth full of excrement would shut you up for five minutes so the rest of us can get on with our productive lives without the distraction of your hippie whining. Eat sloth-sh*t you paranoid f***s!

 

-angrypatrioticbastard.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing a professor says suprises me, I have a history teacher who is White and American, but has somehow deluded himself into believing he is Mexican . Seriously he refered to us grad student as gringos in an email, and he will often speak in his broken spanish and say i am not sure how to say this in english ......he is hilarious :)

 

Me either, some of the ones I had thought they were the smartest person in the world, and while they were pretty smart they were also a little on the crazy/weird side. I don't see how bombs planted at ground zero could have gone off and no one would have noticed until now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, it's easier to believe that terrorists flew planes into the buildings instead of some sort of pre-planned explosives, free mason OMFG CONSPIRACY!!1 I don't think the same govt. that would mastermind such a plot would totally stumble in planning the Iraq invasion. Above all, there are alot easier ways to acquire power and make money illicitly.

 

I think the biggest bargaining chip conspiracy theorists have is why F-16's weren't ripping those two planes apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "pancaking" of the floors is what caused to towers to fall how they did.

 

 

Sure, once the first few floors collapsed the inertia of the falling tower easily collapsed the rest of the floors all the way to the ground. The initial collapse was caused by the intense heat of the jet fuel actually melting the building structure. Constructing the building of fire-resistant materials would only help if the main structural elements were shielded from the potential heat of the jet fuel burning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I was a Combat Engineer for quite some time in the US Army. The primary duty of a Combat Engineer is to find a structure and blow it up. I am also a firefighter with extensive training in building construction and building collapse. IMHO, experience beats a PHD every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

Let's also bear in mind that this is coming from an Astronomy professor...

 

His Version

First - he presents video evidence of building 7 collapsing on itself. He then directs you to notice "squibs" along successive floors on the right hand side of the building. This is "obviously" evidence of detonations. Then he talks about the symmetry of the fall, the speed of the fall, and "smoke" puffs as his final proof. His biggest piece of evidence is that a fire has never caused a steel building to collapse before or since.

 

My version

First, this evidence is presented without the benefit of sound. I don't know if any of you have ever witnessed a building implosion but the blast is EXTREMELY loud and can be heard for miles. Something like that would have been noticed and can be easily verified by LISTENING to the source tape's audio. I have never heard an explosion.

 

Also, in order to take out a steel frame building you need to use an explosive with a high cutting rating [C-4 has a cutting rating of 1.4 versus 1.0 for tnt - that's what the "C" stands for] and LOTS of it. Explosives with higher C-ratings have high C ratings because the blasts are directed in a single direction. This is the principal behind a shape charge. If you look at the "squib" pictures, you will notice that the squibs do not have a uniform shape. How do I account for these squibs? Have you ever snapped a stick? Right at the breaking point, the energy created by friction and inertia create a debris field. The force of concrete and steel snapping under enormous pressure would create a cloud of pulverized materials - much like what you see here.

 

The symmetrical collapse of the building has nothing to do with explosives and everything to do with design. These buildings were designed specifically to take a direct hit from the largest commercial airliner of the time without toppling over. The engineers designed the building load to be carried by the exoskeleton. This is a brilliant design. The only problem with this design is that each floor is dependent on the floor above and below it. Firefighters face a similar challenge when working on the roofs of buildings built with truss construction - if one truss burns through, the whole roof system becomes compromised. With that said, the force of the initial impact and explosion would have been more than sufficient to blow huge chunks of ANY fireproofing material off of at least some of the steel frame. Uncontrolled fires from burning diesel fuel created enough heat to warp and weaken the steel on several floors. When the steel reaches a certain point, it is no longer strong enough to push out on the walls and starts to sink. When these beams sink, they begin to pull at the exterior walls. When enough beams sink, it creates enough pressure to pull the walls in on themselves. After this happens, all of the floors above are going to come down. As these floors come down under immense mass and velocity, the laws of Physics as they pertain to inertia would take over. The "smoke" you see isn't smoke at all - it is pulverized granite and glass and bone and anything else that got caught in the cycle. This is what created the large majority of respiratory illness - pulverized marble and metals in people's lungs.

 

He has one point. Fire has never caused a collapse of a building like this before. Usually, when someone throws a cigarette into a wastepaper basket? The sprinkler system is more than adequate for taking care of the issue. Of course, I don't know how many skyscrapers have had millions of gallons of diesel burning in them out of control, but I digress...

 

Finally, you should be able to find traces of RDX, polyisobutylene, and/or 2-ethylhexyl sebacate all over any of the remaining chunks of the building. These little critters are what we like to call ?explosive residue.?

 

To me, this is a bunch of nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a Combat Engineer for quite some time in the US Army. The primary duty of a Combat Engineer is to find a structure and blow it up. I am also a firefighter with extensive training in building construction and building collapse. IMHO, experience beats a PHD every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

Let's also bear in mind that this is coming from an Astronomy professor...

 

His Version

First - he presents video evidence of building 7 collapsing on itself. He then directs you to notice "squibs" along successive floors on the right hand side of the building. This is "obviously" evidence of detonations. Then he talks about the symmetry of the fall, the speed of the fall, and "smoke" puffs as his final proof. His biggest piece of evidence is that a fire has never caused a steel building to collapse before or since.

 

My version

First, this evidence is presented without the benefit of sound. I don't know if any of you have ever witnessed a building implosion but the blast is EXTREMELY loud and can be heard for miles. Something like that would have been noticed and can be easily verified by LISTENING to the source tape's audio. I have never heard an explosion.

 

Also, in order to take out a steel frame building you need to use an explosive with a high cutting rating [C-4 has a cutting rating of 1.4 versus 1.0 for tnt - that's what the "C" stands for] and LOTS of it. Explosives with higher C-ratings have high C ratings because the blasts are directed in a single direction. This is the principal behind a shape charge. If you look at the "squib" pictures, you will notice that the squibs do not have a uniform shape. How do I account for these squibs? Have you ever snapped a stick? Right at the breaking point, the energy created by friction and inertia create a debris field. The force of concrete and steel snapping under enormous pressure would create a cloud of pulverized materials - much like what you see here.

 

The symmetrical collapse of the building has nothing to do with explosives and everything to do with design. These buildings were designed specifically to take a direct hit from the largest commercial airliner of the time without toppling over. The engineers designed the building load to be carried by the exoskeleton. This is a brilliant design. The only problem with this design is that each floor is dependent on the floor above and below it. Firefighters face a similar challenge when working on the roofs of buildings built with truss construction - if one truss burns through, the whole roof system becomes compromised. With that said, the force of the initial impact and explosion would have been more than sufficient to blow huge chunks of ANY fireproofing material off of at least some of the steel frame. Uncontrolled fires from burning diesel fuel created enough heat to warp and weaken the steel on several floors. When the steel reaches a certain point, it is no longer strong enough to push out on the walls and starts to sink. When these beams sink, they begin to pull at the exterior walls. When enough beams sink, it creates enough pressure to pull the walls in on themselves. After this happens, all of the floors above are going to come down. As these floors come down under immense mass and velocity, the laws of Physics as they pertain to inertia would take over. The "smoke" you see isn't smoke at all - it is pulverized granite and glass and bone and anything else that got caught in the cycle. This is what created the large majority of respiratory illness - pulverized marble and metals in people's lungs.

 

He has one point. Fire has never caused a collapse of a building like this before. Usually, when someone throws a cigarette into a wastepaper basket? The sprinkler system is more than adequate for taking care of the issue. Of course, I don't know how many skyscrapers have had millions of gallons of diesel burning in them out of control, but I digress...

 

Finally, you should be able to find traces of RDX, polyisobutylene, and/or 2-ethylhexyl sebacate all over any of the remaining chunks of the building. These little critters are what we like to call ?explosive residue.?

 

To me, this is a bunch of nonsense.

 

A Yankee fan posted this?? Jp nice post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...