Physicist says BOMBS brought down WTC, not planes!!!!

[OKthatsIT]

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.

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

[monarch]

1. How are they going to spin this?

They can hardly claim that BYU is some bastion of loony liberals

[RobertSeattle]

8. One Physicists does not mean all.

Many engineers and other physicists except the conventional explanation. As I do.

[Ian David]

18. There are biologists who believe an Invisible Man in the Sky...

created the world in seven days.

And there are idiot physicists who think there were bombs planted in the WTC.

[frylock]

and then tere are laypeople, such as myself who wonder..

how these buildings could tumble at near freefall speeds, straight into their footprints.

[Ian David]

33. I think being hit by a fully-loaded jumbo jet had something to do with it

Just a hunch.

[frylock]

43. freefall speeds?!!

[chelsea0011]

2. So they're saying since it didn't tip over it must have been imploded.

It's an upright building that collapsed on itself. And I don't know no physics.

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. Big tall thin things

don't fall down like that naturally. Maybe if it had been sliced perfectly in half, it would fall straight down. But not when the damage didn't even go all the way through.

Especially WTC7 which was a traditional steel frame building, about 24 stories high, that was on fire but the fire was only affecting one side of the building. There was no reason that that building should come down when and how it did.

[longship]

20. WTC7 was 47 stories tall.

The reason why it came down when and how it did was that it was hit by a huge amount of flaming debris from the collapse of two 110 story buildings. Or maybe you think that was a delusion, too.

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. Show me the pictures

A lot of buildings around the towers were severely damaged by debris. If there was so much debris from the collapse of the towers, then WTC7 should have collapsed with 1 & 2. There was not enough fire to cause the building to drop evenly in its footprint hours later.

[DoYouEverWonder]

41. BTW: Thanks for the correction

on the number of stories.

[RufusEarl]

42. Nope

Look at bldg #7, before it collapsed. It was intact with small fires burning on the 24 floor, no major damage to the structure at all. Building # 7 was brought down with explosives, just like the owner of the building said. The question is how did anyone know ahead of time to set charges in that building to bring it down on Sept 11, 2001.

[Yupster]

31. If they wanted to set explosives and have the buildings come down

why go through the whole airplane deal?

Why not have a truck bomb do it like they did in 94?

Uh oh.

Maybe Bush was behind that one too -- or maybe Clinton was in cahoots with the BFEE in 94 when they did the first attack.

This is scary.

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. This was all about visuals

Think more like an epic production with Rummie has the director.

[tinrobot]

36. Gravity pulls things straight down.

Last time I took physics, I learned that, unless there's something in the way, gravity pulls things straight down.

Those buildings looked solid, but they were essentially a hollow tube filled with air. There was nothing to prevent them from falling straight down.

If you look at the video of the second collapse, you'll see the top of the tower tip over as it starts to collapse because the impact wall failed first. Once the floors below the impact also failed, however, the subsequent debris fell vertically.

[longship]

37. Physics and engineering predict that it will collapse

into its own footprint. A building whose structural integrity fails *cannot* topple. It can *only* collapse downward. So much for physics PhDs. I only have a B.S. in physics and I can debunk this rubbish.

If the integrity of the building is bad enough to have it break, it could not then topple. The only way it can fail is to collapse. It is a simple exercise to show this with a stack of blocks. The blocks do not topple over as a unit; they collapse into their own footprint, just like *any* tall building would do.

Ignorance is a dangerous thing, especially when wielded by ignorant people. :evilgrin:

[Ian David]

3. The mods have locked that topic so, so so many times.

For what it's worth, I was listening to right-wing radio yesterday and they have silly conspiracy theories too.

[snowbear]

11. Geez.. can you blame them for locking it?

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: This is actually getting voted up? :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[Ian David]

17. You think they just want to make DUers look silly to the rest of the world

??

[snowbear]

I dunno... but it seems to be posts like this the media pluck...

...whenever they do those articles about various left and right wing blogs.

All I can say is... "Oh brother!"


(That, and maybe now I understand why Daily Kos adopted that no-tinfoil-hat policy?") :tinfoilhat:

[Ian David]

29. 5 different people posted this same thing in 5 places nearly simultaneous

I can't help but wonder if there is a coordinated effort to sneak this topic past the moderators.

[snowbear]

34. Seriously? Hmmmm...

That's pretty scary..

[neuvocat]

4. Uh oh.

[mzmolly]

5. I don't understand why that would be necessary? The planes hitting

the building would have been catastrophic enough.

[Ian David]

22. None of the OTHER steel buildings deliberately hit by jumbo jets...

ever collapsed.

EVER!

Wait...

This was the first time?

Never mind.

[Ian David]

44. Well, yes...

But you may as well spend several days secretly planting explosives in carefully planned locations, risking the chance your operatives will get caught in the process, just in case crashing a 747 loaded with fuel into a building doesn't pack quite enough "oomph."

[Botany]

6. Just because those 3 buildings were the only steel frame

buildings in history to collapse as they did doesn't mean anything

and Dick Cheney had the ANG and the USAF running war games that morning
of a mock up of hijacked planes crashing into buildings doesn't mean
anything

and that * said he saw the 1st plane hit the WTT #2 to reporters before
he read about goats to the kids even though that was not shown on
TV until after the 2nd plane hit and he had no television @ the time
doesn't mean anything.

move along nothing to see here move along

[goclark]

27. And Neil Bush was not involved with Security for the WTC

Just a big fat lie, please let us move along and not even bother to read this link...

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/burns/030204_BushFamilyCompanyHandledSecurity.htm

Please give me a link that will beat to pieces the thought that a Bush family member had ANY connection to the WTC.

[tatertop]

28. Some people will not even CONSIDER MIHOP

even now, after all we have been through.

[motocicleta]

7. it's also gotten on msnbc

albeit with that idiot turdburglar Carlson.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/

[radio4progressives]

9. You can see the explosions during the peter jennings tribute special

i couldn't believe my eyes.

for the first time, totally unexpectely while watching the ABC's 2 hour Tribute to Peter Jennings the week after he passed away, on at least two if not threee occasions during this two hour special, footage of the WTC explosions could be seen as the narration talked about Jenning's coverage of this story.

I was simply astonished. In all of the coverage during the time of 9/11, and in some films i had seen subsequently, never did i see actual footage of the buildings exploding.

So, yes. It wasn't the planes that brought buildings down.

It was explosives. and not jet fuel turning into a ball of flames, either, I'm talking about EXPLOSIONS - projectile of matter in every direction.

[catmother]

10. i can't imagine that 9/11 was orchestrated by the government.

did they hire muslims to fly planes into buildings and then plant explosives besides? how could they coordinate all this?

don't flame me. just explain to me how and why?

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. Jones

"Some of the new experiments also sought to reproduce the less contentious findings on cold fusion reported independently by Dr. Steven E. Jones and his colleagues at Brigham Young University in Utah. Dr. Jones, who used a device similar to the one in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, did not claim that any useful energy was produced. But he did report that slightly more neutrons were detected while the cell was operating than could be expected from normal sources. The result suggests at least the possibility of fusion, he said, although it is not likely to be useful as an energy source."

A reliable source.

[enough already]

13. Nothing would surprise me at this point

I don't doubt for a second that Bush had something to do with the hijackings. I hadn't thought of bombs before, but this gang is capable of it.

[Ian David]

25. That's a very human reaction and part of why we have to be careful

It is hard-wired into our genes that when we are exposed to real conspiracies we tend to be more receptive to believing in other conspiracies based upon less evidence.

In other words, being afraid of "fool me twice, shame on me" naturally makes us more susceptible to believing in false conspiracies rather than risk being fooled into missing a real one.

[longship]

15. Not again.

Rubbish. Rubbish!! Rubbish!!!

Just because a kook has an academic credential doesn't mean he isn't a kook.

Here we go with mystery planes, mystery explosives, mystery airliner passengers, and a huge conspiracy that what we all saw before our very eyes is somehow a great delusion.

MIHOP is for the ignorant. No wonder the Repugs have taken over so easily. Our country's incredulity is severely fractured.

[Al-CIAda]

21. Joe Lieberman? Is that you? -eom

[longship]

23. Ad hominems do not defend rubbish.

It's still rubbish.

[Rick Myers]

16. Regardless of our personal opinions...

This nation DESERVES a COMPLETE, DETAILED investigation of the entire 9/11 matter. There are too many odd moments in the whole event, and until a COMPLETE investigation is made public, people will always come up with 'theories.'

[Ian David]

39. Agreed! n/t

[medeak]

19. we build high rises

don't care what all the conspiracy theories say. The minute the first plane hit my husband said "It's coming down" "No way the steel can stand the heat of jet fuel"

[pnorman]

24. Up until now, I've avoided such theories like the plague.

But the following has certainly caused me to give this one careful consideration:

>>
• 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.
>
>

pnorman

[Ian David]

26. "explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says."

I think a fully-loaded 747 can sever steel columns, too.

[DBoon]

30. I'd find it more credible if a Civil Engineer was saying this

preferably one with specific expertise in building demolition.

[Ian David]

35. I'd find it more credible if it were the preponderance of evidence...

or even if there were reasonable evidence and it wasn't coming from a handful of kooks trying to sell books about it or who had an agenda to push.

The technical word is called "silly."

[Dr Ron]

40. Even if bombs, this doesn't say who planted them

Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that there really was evidence that the towers came down due to bombs.

This still wouldn't prove any conspiracy theories (beyond the known conspiracy by al Qaeda). While a bit far fetched, it is still more plausible that al Qaeda planted bombs in the buildings they planned to crash into, in order to maximize damage, than to believe that someone else both manipulated them into flying into the building and planted bombs.

[Moderator]

45. Locking

Discussion of 9/11 belongs in the 9/11 forum.