| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
12 Nov 2005 03:17:47 AM |
| Object: |
Another insane Mormon? |
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
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.
"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:
=B7 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."
=B7 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.
=B7 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.
=B7 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=2ES. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
=B7 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.
=B7 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.
=B7 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.
=B7 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.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
"Sex is only perverted if it implants voracious alien parasites in your
bladder or rectum." -- nu-monet v8.0
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Another insane Mormon? |
12 Nov 2005 06:25:19 AM |
|
|
"Another insane Mormon?"
By definition, no Mormon is sane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Another insane Mormon? |
12 Nov 2005 07:47:09 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
"Another insane Mormon?"
By definition, no Mormon is sane.
Don't we get enough of that from fundies? a
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Another insane Mormon? |
13 Nov 2005 05:20:13 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 03:17:47 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) wrote:
=B7 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.
Maybe it was cold fusion.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Another insane Mormon? |
13 Nov 2005 12:03:05 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 05:20:13 GMT, satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org>
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 03:17:47 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) wrote:
=B7 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.
Maybe it was cold fusion.
Or Satan's breath...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
