Saturday, November 12, 2005

without comment

BYU professor thinks bombs (...) toppled WTC
"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," (Steven E.) 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.

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.


At 11:29 AM, November 12, 2005, Blogger Luis Rocha said...

This is the dirtiest secret of America. This guy as some balls, to show something this.

but you you know what? It's true. 911 is all about lies.

At 2:41 PM, November 12, 2005, Blogger WHT said...

Yes, Luis, it's lies, but you have to sort the wheat from the chaffe.

At 10:19 PM, November 12, 2005, Blogger monkeygrinder said...

Well, after your post WHT, the dude looks more like a silly pumpkin to me, but as far as the 9-11 stuff goes...

Three buildings. There's a set. All fall within 8 hours. 2 were hit by planes, but three fall straight down.

The funny thing is, I don't even really care at this point. I just posted this because I thought it was surprising that someone in acadamia felt they could talk about this without being hammered down.

I suspect Jones's biggest sin is that he's a slow learner.

At 1:52 AM, November 13, 2005, Blogger UNplanner said...

I spent 3 hours reading up on this after following the link. I don't know what to think anymore. Can't say I buy a governmental plot to topple the towers but I can't categorically exclude it either. Thanks for that extra help of cognitive dissonance. I already don't sleep well.

At 12:44 PM, November 15, 2005, Blogger James Moe said...

As Jones points out in his paper, his hypothesis can be tested and falsified. I don't have a problem with people trying to come up with serious alternate theories, especially given that WTC7 was not hit by a plane.

He would have served himself and his hypothesis better if he had kept it to the science, though. If evidence for the explosives theory is compelling enough, there is no need to bludgeon people toward the conclusion that someone must have planted them. Making murky speculations about who may have done so doesn't help his credibility, especially when being interviewed by soundbite journalists.

At 4:44 PM, November 15, 2005, Blogger Tim of Suburbia said...

I was surprised to find this on the main MSNBC news page today, but after reading the transcript of the interview with Tucker Carlson, all I can say it that Tucker Carlon is an ass.

Questioning what happened on 9/11
Professor believes planes didn't cause all the damage around the WTC

At 8:49 PM, November 15, 2005, Blogger WHT said...

More Steven E. Jones stuff, in his landmark paper "Evidence for Christ's Visit in America"

MG, I think this guy needs one more blog posting for the record.

At 9:31 PM, November 15, 2005, Blogger monkeygrinder said...

Oh my -- I really know how to pick 'em, lately.

But, given the topic of of Jones proto-classical-archaelogy is founded in religion, more particuarly, HIS religion, I can't grief him for that. After all,

"It is possible that paranormal forces not yet established may allow prayers to influence the material world..."

-Martin Gardner

Given that Jones is verifiably loony, that is strong evidence we shouldn't bother investigating anything he talks about.

seems logical.

At 3:30 PM, December 01, 2005, Anonymous Brian M said...

I was present at Steven E. Jones' presentation about 9-11 (at W. Cleon Skousen's home in Utah.)

Currently I am working on a webpage containing the information from a Power Point Presentation that Professor Jones made and showed to us.

Don't bash it until you've read it and seen all the videos.

and NO, he's not Loony.


Post a Comment

<< Home