BYU Forms New Theory About 9/11 Attacks

[Gold9472]

BYU Forms New Theory About 9/11 Attacks

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html

11/12/2005

(KUTV) PROVO, Utah A BYU professor has developed a new theory about the terrorist attack in New York on September 11, 2001. He believes planes alone did not bring down the world trade center.

Both towers collapsed in place after the attacks, and later that day, 7 World Trade Center, which was never hit by a plane, fell in less than seven seconds.

BYU professor Steven E. Jones says that planes alone did not bring down the towers.

The images are seared into the minds of people across the globe. We saw the planes hit, the explosions and fire so hot, fortress towers could not stand. Jones says not so fast.

"They're sticking with this one hypothesis. Its almost like they have blinders on – and its got to be fires and damage,” says Jones.

Jones is a 20-year physics professor at BYU, who's penned an academic paper raising another hypothesis – explosives may have been pre-positioned in the buildings.

“Notice how it's straight down,” Jones says referring to the fall of one of the buildings.

Especially intriguing to Jones was the destruction of 7 World Trade Center, damaged and ablaze from tower debris but never hit by a plane.

"Symmetrically now, it doesn't topple over, as you might expect, from what we call the second law of thermodynamics. It comes straight down. This is the goal of prepositioned explosives in a controlled demolition,” says Jones.

If explosives detonated like this – if they did – it begs the question.

"Who set the explosives?” 2News reporter Brian Mullahy asked Jones.

"I try not to go there because we have to answer the first question first – the scientific issue first,” says Jones. "We need to consider all options for the collapse of these buildings. Let the chips fall where they may.”

Jones said that models conducted in tests since 9/11 have not been able to duplicate what happened to the buildings. He is not saying this is a proven theory, but rather a hypothesis. He wants a fresh new independent investigation.

(© MMV, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

[Partridge]

Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC


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.
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 (http://www.wtc7.net/), whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html).

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: • 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.

• 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.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.



E-mail: jarvik@desnews.com

[Partridge]

Heh, you have to laugh - a Tecnorati search for Stephen E Jones (http://www.technorati.com/search/%22Steven+E.+Jones%22) brings up a lot of results. The best one being the following from 'Right Wing Pundit (http://rightwingpundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/byu-professor-endorses-911-inside-job.html)':


Once a theory of moonbats and fringe groups, the professor's endorsement actually adds credence to such garbage.

This professor's endorsement of such a theory suggests that 9/11 was an inside job and greatly tarnishes the school's image.

[....]

Voice your concern to the university president here (http://unicomm.byu.edu/president/feedback.aspx?lms=3).

For a thorough debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories, check out this article (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y)from Popular Mechanics. [my emphasis]

On a follow-up post (http://rightwingpundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/responding-to-byus-conspiracy-theorist.html) he says


Here's my thoughts on the problem with BYU's Steven Jones and his publication of '9-11/inside job' conspiracy theories. This is taken from an email to BYU's president. I don't address the problems with Dr. Jones's arguments (which are not my expertise), and only briefly mention the problem with conspiracy theories in general (more about that in a later post). [again, my empahasis]

His entire 'argument' rests on the 'fact' that:


In an era of unprecedented anti-Americanism both at home and abroad, the publication of conspiracy theories implicating our government in the mass-murder of its own citizens adds fuel to the fire. Conspiracy theories take a lot of work to disprove, and even after a thorough debunking, they live on. Because of Dr. Jones's publication, even after someone goes to the trouble of once again disproving the claims of an 'inside job,' extremist websites and anti-American agitators will point to the original publication when they call our national leaders "murderers," "Hitler," and "war-criminal." BYU's name should not be involved with such deceit and hate.

Interestingly, the subtitle of his blog is "Encouraging ideological DIVERSITY, political TOLERANCE and EQUALITY of opportunity."

But on the comment section of the second article, he has deleted two comments, claiming they were 'spam'.

Like I said, you have to laugh.

[911=inside job]

HAHAHAHHA!!!! what a douche he is!!!!

[somebigguy]

Heh, you have to laugh - a Tecnorati search for Stephen E Jones (http://www.technorati.com/search/%22Steven+E.+Jones%22) brings up a lot of results. The best one being the following from 'Right Wing Pundit (http://rightwingpundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/byu-professor-endorses-911-inside-job.html)':



On a follow-up post (http://rightwingpundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/responding-to-byus-conspiracy-theorist.html) he says



His entire 'argument' rests on the 'fact' that:



Interestingly, the subtitle of his blog is "Encouraging ideological DIVERSITY, political TOLERANCE and EQUALITY of opportunity."

But on the comment section of the second article, he has deleted two comments, claiming they were 'spam'.

Like I said, you have to laugh.
Yep, he dismisses the entire argument without referencing one bit of it. Way to have an open mind putz.

[Partridge]

I've posted it in the headlines section of GNN, hopefully it will get enough votes (40) to get featured...

If anyone has a GNN account, go vote for it here http://www.gnn.tv/H06007

[PhilosophyGenius]

"A BYU professor has developed a new theory about the terrorist attack in New York "

I hate to break the news to him but he's a couple years late on this theory.

[Gold9472]

SERIOUSLY

[Gold9472]

SBG had this theory LONG before Dr. whatshisname.

[somebigguy]

I've posted it in the headlines section of GNN, hopefully it will get enough votes (40) to get featured...

If anyone has a GNN account, go vote for it here http://www.gnn.tv/H06007
How do you vote???

[Partridge]

How do you vote???

Well, you need to sign up for a GNN account, and then at the bottom you should get an option to vote Yes or No.

But don't register just to vote, I think thats taking the piss a bit (no offence to Rebel Patriot who it seems signed up today).

I'm pretty sure it will get put up anyway, I've only ever had one headline rejected, and that was because it was from Granma (the Cuban Communist Party newpaper).

[somebigguy]

Well, you need to sign up for a GNN account, and then at the bottom you should get an option to vote Yes or No.

But don't register just to vote, I think thats taking the piss a bit (no offence to Rebel Patriot who it seems signed up today).

I'm pretty sure it will get put up anyway, I've only ever had one headline rejected, and that was because it was from Granma (the Cuban Communist Party newpaper).
I already signed up, just couldn't find a vote button...

[PhilosophyGenius]

SBG had this theory LONG before Dr. whatshisname.

And he's Canadian! HAHAHAH

But seriously, this guys suppose to be some sort of hot shot university professor right. We'll I'm a jr college student and I knew about this waaayyyy before he did. And he's acting like uncovered a ground breaking conspiracy that's gonna change the world forever, ya right...

[somebigguy]

OK, I found the vote button. See the size of the button?? How the hell did I miss that????

[somebigguy]

And he's Canadian! HAHAHAH

But seriously, this guys suppose to be some sort of hot shot university professor right. We'll I'm a jr college student and I knew about this waaayyyy before he did. And he's acting like uncovered a ground breaking conspiracy that's gonna change the world forever, ya right...
Well, we can't crucify everyone who was late to the party. The guy is speaking up and encouraging others to do the same, thats what we've been screaming for all this time, for the experts to speak up!!!

[PhilosophyGenius]

Yeah I know, just joking around. I'm a late comer as well.

By the way, did you guys know that Oswald didnt kill Kennedy? According to my calculations and expert analysist, it would be impossible for him to have done it.

*whisper* I think it was the governent...

[somebigguy]

SBG had this theory LONG before Dr. whatshisname.
Yeah, well, I stole my theory from David Ray Griffen, Alex Jones, the Lets Roll guys and everyone else I learned from.

Its not about who is right, its not about who takes the credit (although some schmucks no doubtedly will try), its about exposing the truth. And when that is done, and we all have something of a future to look forward to, we can all go back to our lives and be happy that we ALL contributed to the solution.

[PhilosophyGenius]

If I were a hardcore 9/11 Truther busting my ass for to spread the word, and the truth finally comes out. I'd be pissed if I got no credit.

[somebigguy]

Yeah I know, just joking around. I'm a late comer as well.

By the way, did you guys know that Oswald didnt kill Kennedy? According to my calculations and expert analysist, it would be impossible for him to have done it.

*whisper* I think it was the governent...
I was three years late, the day of the attacks I said to myself, "damn that looks like controlled demolition". I think all of us did, then we just put it out of our minds.

That was our sub-concious trying to tell us something that day, and we all ignored it.

Regarding that JFK thing, I'd keep that under your hat, I believe they are trying to keep it quiet!!!

[somebigguy]

If I were a hardcore 9/11 Truther busting my ass for to spread the word, and the truth finally comes out. I'd be pissed if I got no credit.
Yeah, but there are too many of us, and we all make a difference. Thats why the government can't stop it, we have a few standouts like DRG, and 911=Inside Job, but the rest of us are just average everyday shmoes spreading the word.

[PhilosophyGenius]

I was three years late, the day of the attacks I said to myself, "damn that looks like controlled demolition". I think all of us did, then we just put it out of our minds.

That was our sub-concious trying to tell us something that day, and we all ignored it.

Regarding that JFK thing, I'd keep that under your hat, I believe they are trying to keep it quiet!!!

1. (show-off)

2. I'm planning on keeping my JFK theory to myself, people might think I'm a wacko.

[Partridge]

By the way, did you guys know that Oswald didnt kill Kennedy?

MOONBAT!

[PhilosophyGenius]

Yeah, but there are too many of us, and we all make a difference. Thats why the government can't stop it, we have a few standouts like DRG, and 911=Inside Job, but the rest of us are just average everyday shmoes spreading the word.

911=InsideJob is a truther? All that guy does is make jokes. HAAHAH

[somebigguy]

911=InsideJob is a truther? All that guy does is make jokes. HAAHAH
He's the baddest mofo you'll ever meet!!!

[PhilosophyGenius]

He's the baddest mofo you'll ever meet!!!

That's what scares me.

:sofahide:

[Gold9472]

BTW... did you know there's a good movie in the link? I can't grab it.

[somebigguy]

I've posted it in the headlines section of GNN, hopefully it will get enough votes (40) to get featured...

If anyone has a GNN account, go vote for it here http://www.gnn.tv/H06007
We only got 5 signatures so far, sign up and vote damn it!!!

[somebigguy]

BTW... did you know there's a good movie in the link? I can't grab it.
Where, I don't see it.

[Gold9472]

On the right hand side... top right...

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html

[somebigguy]

On the right hand side... top right...

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html
Dude, its awesome!!! They gave it a really fair shake and their last statement was:

"Definitely something to think about".

They mentioned WTC7 as well.

[Gold9472]

Told ya.

[somebigguy]

I sent a link to my buddy who knows a lot about flash to see if he can download it.

This is the link for anyone else who is interested:

http://kutv.com/video/?id=10093@kutv.dayport.com

[Gold9472]

I'm going to put hte audio up in a minute...

[Gold9472]

Here's the audio...

Click Here (http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/jonesinterview.mp3)

[somebigguy]

Here is a draft of Steven Jone's work:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/resea...nergy/ htm7.html