Promoting skepticism and reason without boundaries or sacred cows.
Last night, Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University was interviewed on MSNBC. He wasn't given enough time to make his points, but he said his paper is online. So here's a sample:

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

Let’s start with the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never hit by a jet.
WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.) A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of most or all of the support columns. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and symmetrical collapse of buildings.

A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides relevant data.

Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

That’s correct – no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete, symmetrical collapses have indeed occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 15, 2005
Guess the whackos are not all in Ivy League schools.
on Nov 15, 2005
You know... I trust the engineer/designer on this one... he has gone on the record as saying that the intensity of the heat involved made faliure unavoidable(because while strong, the steel involved couldn't withstand being baked at the temperatures involved for a long period of time), and it would only take a failure on ONE floor to bring the whole thing down. He then used a small model to show what he was talking about. Basically, the weight above the failure point smashed downwards, causing a quick cascading failure.

I think the good professor here is failing to consider the intensity of the fire here. This was not by any stretch of the imagination an ordinary fire. Two full airline tanks in a compressed area burning at a temperature that soften steel over a short time. Even if it wasn't blowtorch hot, there was enough fire and fuel to degrade the structural integrity of the already damaged buildings.
on Nov 15, 2005
Has anyone else here actually been in the vicinity of a detonation? The shock wave given off by the explosives, as well as the noise, is quite noticeable.
on Nov 15, 2005
Two full airline tanks in a compressed area burning at a temperature that soften steel over a short time. Even if it wasn't blowtorch hot, there was enough fire and fuel to degrade the structural integrity of the already damaged buildings


What about building 7?
on Nov 15, 2005

What about building 7?

The black helicopters took it out because the General had crapped out.

on Nov 15, 2005
That’s correct – no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires!


Perhaps because no such steel-beam building had ever before been exposed to such intense heat and exploding jet fuel before? It can happen with even a normal fire if intense enough, it's just that most fires in this kind of building are put out in a damned hurry.

Sure it's reasonable not to expect it from a normal fire, pretreated building materials burning for a short period. But you let a fire burn long enough? It doesn't have to even burn the steel. (temperatures of 2800F or higher) All it has to do is get hot enough to anneal (soften) it. (about 1300 degrees farenheit or higher) (actually even a normal fire could do this, but would have to burn for a enough time for the heat to be distributed throughout the large mass of metal that would prevent much spot heat. )

Once the metal is annealed, it won't reharden without quenching or work hardening. So it won't hold up under pressure either. Give it awhile under weight. And phoomph. Down it comes.

Try something. Take a piece of steel rebar, heat it up in a fire, and quench it fast in water. Then try to bend it where it was heated. Nothing, right? Then take it again, heat it up again, but this time just let it set until it's cool. Try to bend it again. See how easy that was? That's what happened.

Explosives weren't necessary. Furthermore, what are you suggesting by stating that it was explosives? Saying the terrorists did it? (and if so, does it really make a difference how?)The old looney tunes conspiracy theory that the Bush admin blew them up themeselves to start the war again? What's your point on this?
on Nov 15, 2005
what are you suggesting by stating that it was explosives? Saying the terrorists did it? (and if so, does it really make a difference how?)The old looney tunes conspiracy theory that the Bush admin blew them up themeselves to start the war again? What's your point on this?


I didn't write the paper!
on Nov 15, 2005
No but you passed it along without comment, so one has to guess your take on it. That's the drawback of using other people's articles without writing one of your own...
on Nov 15, 2005
I didn't write the paper!


Nope, but you regurgitated it into your blog. Not bad by itself; I've done this occasionaly, usually with a quotation, but surely you had a reason, right? Plain ole scientific curiosity? Even the posting of material not your own implies an opinion.

I admit the idea's possible. Not plausible, but hey, weirder stuff has happened. I jumped down your throat a little hard before.

But okay, supposing x = it was blown up with explosives instead of JUST airplanes, then y = what? The article itself has several connotations, and I'm wondering, do you support some of these implications, or what?
on Nov 15, 2005
The fact the buildings collapsed symetrically was explained in the early days after the attacks occured. The engineers themselves explained that they knew the building would someday have to be demolished,so it was designed to collapse on itself. From what I remember, they said the buildings went down pretty much the way they were designed to.

I think the good BYU professor needs to get his mind off the cameras and back onto physics... But then again, unless you're Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan or Einstein, you don't get people writing blogs echoing your words by being just a physics & astronomy professor. ;~D
on Nov 15, 2005

This is reminiscent of the French Theory that the Pentagon was blown up.  Because they did not find any plane wreckage. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

I did not know the BYU guy was French!

on Nov 15, 2005
I'm wondering, do you support some of these implications, or what?


I thought it was interesting and I wanted to get some opinions.
on Nov 15, 2005

I hate Bush so don;t get me wrong but

I really don;t see him sitting there nodding his head when his secret gov guys are saying ...

"Mr President.. we found an 'in' to go to war with Iraq"
- "ok fellas, lay it on me"
"Well it invloves hijacking 3-5 planes full of people, flying them into the Twin towers in NY, riggin the Twin Towers with high explosives to detonate hours later, killing and maiming large amounts of our Firemen and Police, and resulting in the US economy going into a tailspin"
"Ohh yeah... and we'll fly one at the pentagon to boot so noone will ever suspect us."
- "ok boys, what's the down-side?"
"Well... err if you are implicated it would mean not only treason charges but most likely you'll be the first President ever Executed while in office"
-"....0000ooo.."
on Nov 15, 2005

I hate Bush so don;t get me wrong but

I love you Sushi!  You make me laugh!  Seriously!

on Nov 15, 2005
altho i'm unable to invest any credence in jones' conjecture, it appears a number of you ignored the link iconcoclast provided or you're focusing only on the two towers into which those jets slammed.

This was not by any stretch of the imagination an ordinary fire. Two full airline tanks in a compressed area burning at a temperature that soften steel over a short time.


Perhaps because no such steel-beam building had ever before been exposed to such intense heat and exploding jet fuel before?


the Pentagon was blown up. Because they did not find any plane wreckage


jones' observations about building 7 are, if nothing else, a bit more difficult to dismiss outta hand.
2 Pages1 2