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.)

[somebigguy]

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.

Thats what I've been telling everyone. Damn I'm smart.

[Gold9472]

I've been telling people a lot longer than you dicklick... I'm smart... me me me...

[Gold9472]

Not the WTC... the fact that we need a REAL investigation...

[Gold9472]

Heh... I just went to WaWa to get some lunch, and while I was waiting in line, I said, "The news just reported that the WTC were blown up." People looked at me like I was a nut... :) Screw them...

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

[somebigguy]

I've been telling people a lot longer than you dicklick... I'm smart... me me me...
I've been pushing the demolition, you've been pushing prior intelligence (yawn).

Whose the man now BITCH!!!!

[Gold9472]

I've been pushing the demolition, you've been pushing prior intelligence (yawn).

Whose the man now BITCH!!!!

Excuse me?

[Gold9472]

I swear to God... if WTC Demo is the thing to break this thing wide open, and people like you who have been pushing the Demo, etc... start getting egos... I will fucking quit the movement.

[somebigguy]

I swear to God... if WTC Demo is the thing to break this thing wide open, and people like you who have been pushing the Demo, etc... start getting egos... I will fucking quit the movement.
So what are you saying? If I get an ego, you'll quit??? Where is the downside?

[Gold9472]

So what are you saying? If I get an ego, you'll quit??? Where is the downside?

No... if people start playing that bullshit game that others have played... "It's all about me... it's all about my theory... etc..." I will get PISSED off...

NO ONE KNOWS EVERYTHING, ONLY TOGETHER MAY WE FIND THE TRUTH

[somebigguy]

No... if people start playing that bullshit game that others have played... "It's all about me... it's all about my theory... etc..." I will get PISSED off...

NO ONE KNOWS EVERYTHING, ONLY TOGETHER MAY WE FIND THE TRUTH
Oh quit your whining, I'm kidding, you of all people should know that.

[somebigguy]

So lets talk holographs.

[Gold9472]

I know YOU are... but I could imagine it happening...

[somebigguy]

I know YOU are... but I could imagine it happening...
Its already happening, you don't have to go too far to run into them.

[Gold9472]

I could just see Jimmy Walters.... "Yes yes... it was me... thank you thank you..."

[Gold9472]

Or... Ruppert... "Yes yes... it was me who opened the door for all of you... no no... I never said 9/11 was a dead issue."

[Gold9472]

Or... Phil Jayhan... "What about the PODS?!?!!? THE PODS!!!"

[Gold9472]

Or Alex Jones... "I am the grandaddy of the 9/11 Truth Movement... all will pay homage to me."

[911=inside job]

So what are you saying? If I get an ego, you'll quit??? Where is the downside?
HAHAHHA!!!! ya gold, where is it????

[somebigguy]

Or Alex Jones... "I am the grandaddy of the 9/11 Truth Movement... all will pay homage to me."
Don't forget Jon Gold: Evil Genius!!!

[somebigguy]

HAHAHHA!!!! ya gold, where is it????
We'd have to find someone else to pick on...

[Gold9472]

Don't forget Jon Gold: Evil Genius!!!

There's a difference between boasting about something inaccurate, and accurate. That is accurate.

[rayrayjones]

There's a difference between boasting about something inaccurate, and accurate. That is accurate.

you guys are hilarious!

have you seen this? i know its old but just came across it...this boolian algebra crap is what caused me to score so poorly on the Gmat..

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV504A.html

The term “official 9/11 account” refers to the account of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, as presented in June 2004 by the Commission of Inquiry appointed by President George W. Bush, and complemented by other official documents issued by US government agencies. This account includes various details, such as identities of the alleged hijackers, identities of aircraft, timelines and other data used to prove that the crime of 9/11 was perpetrated by the named individuals under the orders or the inspiration of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders.

It can be demonstrated by two straightforward mathematical techniques that the official acccount on 9/11 is simply not true.

The first method uses boolean algebra. The other method is based on probability theory.

Boolean algebra used to invalidate the official 9/11 account

Boolean algebra deals not with numbers but with truth values. In Boolean mathematics we have only two values: True and false. One of the primary operations in boolean algebra is the operator AND. In the equation A AND B we have:


Given A = true and B = true, then A AND B = true
Given A = true and B = false, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = true, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = false, then A AND B = false


The AND relationship can be illustrated by three bulbs connected in series. The truth value for each bulb is ON or OFF. In order for bulb C to be ON, both A and B must be ON. If either A or B or both are OFF, C will not obtain electrical current and be OFF. The same would apply to a longer series of bulbs connected in series.

Applying the AND relationship to the official 9/11 account, we posit that

in order for the official account to be true, a number N of fundamental allegations must be proved as true. If any one of these fundamental allegations are false, the entire official account is false.

Thus, it is only necessary to demonstrate that a single fundamental allegation in the official account is false for the entire account to be deemed false. Fundamental allegations include the following (a non-exhaustive list), all of which are part of the official version on 9/11:

1. No plans existed prior to 9/11 to protect the Pentagon and the White House against approaching aircraft (if such plans actually existed, questions would arise why they were not implemented and who prevented their implementation).
2. The idea that the World Trade Center could be attacked from air, did not occur to any US government agency before 9/11 (if it is shown that the idea actually was discussed by US military agencies, the question would arise why it was not taken into consideration to protect these assets).
3. All persons named by the FBI as hijackers actually boarded the four aircraft which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 (if they did not board the aircraft, the hijackings could not have taken place).
4. The planes which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 were flight number AA11 (tail number N334AA), flight number AA77 (tail number N644AA), flight number UA93 (tail number N591UA) and flight number UA175 (tail number N612UA) (if the flight and tail number are not those listed here, the question arises whether the planes that allegedly crashed at the known locations were the same ones which departed from the listed airports).
5. Flight AA11, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
6. Flight AA77, a Boeing 757, left from Dulles Airport, Washington, D.C., and crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure, the type of aircraft and the claim that this aircraft crashed on the Pengaton).
7. Flight UA175, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft.
8. Flight UA93, a Boeing 757, left from Newark Airport and crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
9. The US military were not notified in time to scramble military jets and prevent the crashes of the hijacked aircraft (had they been notified in time, questions would arise why they did not scramble military jets in time and who was negligent).
10. President George W. Bush did not know that “America was under attack” before entering the primary school in Florida on the morning of 9/11 (should it transpire that President Bush actually knew what was going on in New York as he entered the school, questions would arise as to his foreknowledge of the crime).
11. The South and North towers of the World Trade Center as well as WTC no. 7 collapsed due to fire (if evidence can be produced that steel buildings cannot be made to collapse by fire, it would suggest that they were made to collapse by explosives, as actually suggested by a number of witnesses).
12. Numerous calls from hijacked passengers were made to family members and airline personnel with cell phones (if it can be shown that at the particular moment of the phone calls the planes were flying above 8,000 feet and/or at the speed of 500 miles per hour or more, it would suggest that the cellphone stories are a fabrication, because of the technical high improbability of succeeding such calls from high altitude and/or high speed).

If any one of the above allegations is found to be false, the official account must be put in doubt or rejected and the suggestion of official deception or criminal complicity must be considered as justified.

Probability theory used to invalidate the official 9/11 account

It is also possible to “disprove” the official 9/11 account by using probability theory. If it is shown that the probability of the official account is so low as to approach zero, it can be safely maintained that the official account is untrue.

The probability of a compound event to have occurred is the product of all sub-events necessary to accomplish the compound event. The underlying assumption is that the probability of each sub-event is independent of the probability of another sub-event. The following sub-events appear independent of each other. All of them have a low to extremly low probability. In order to simplify the demonstration, we arbitrarily assigned a probability of 0.1 (or 10 percent) to each of the following selected propositions which underpin the official account. Skeptics may try other combinations of probabilities, higher or lower, in order to test the methodology.

1. Four young, healthy and educated Muslims who possess large chunks of cash and like to party, can be expected to prepare for many months to sacrifice their lives in a murderous hijacking operation.

2. Four groups of Muslims can be expected to board four different aircraft in the United States on the same day without raising suspicion.

3. Young muslim men, known to have been in Afghanistan, would be expected to receive a visa to the United States in order to learn to fly.

4. Foreign Muslims who plan to hijack planes in the United States, can be expected to choose to train in US, rather than Arab, flight schools in order to prepare their hijackings.

5. A person planning a hijack operation in the US could be expected to tell an official US employee about his criminal motives, as Mohamed Atta had reportedly done in his encounter with Johnelle Bryant of the Agricultural Department in Florida.

6. Muslims who meticulously plan a hijacking operation in the United States, could be expected to "forget" a Kor’an on a bar stool on the eve of their operation and a flight manual in Arabic on the morning of their operation, in a rented car left near the airport from which they intended to hijack a plane.

7. Hijackers can be expected to fly from another town to the airport from which they intend to commit the hijacking operation merely two hours before their intended hijacking should start.

8. US military authorities can be expected to schedule, for exactly the date of the murderous events, war games and exercises including simulated plane hijackings and planes crashing on government buildings.

9. Conversations from cell phones made from passenger aircraft can be expected to function at any altitude and speed.

10. Passports of hijackers could be expected to be found on the crash sites, regardless of the lack of bodies and wreckage.

11. The US air force could be expected to bungle its attempts to intercept the hijacked planes.

12. No plans could have existed at the Pentagon to protect US government buildings against the risk of an accidental or malicious plane crash.

13. Neither the CIA nor the FBI could have any prior knowledge of the identities and whereabouts of the alleged hijackers before 9/11.

14. A law enforcement authority, such as the FBI, could be expected to show little interest in investigating mass murder.

15. A government would be expected to oppose an investigation of a terrorist attack against its own country.

16. Terrorists can be expected to commit mass murder without making any demands.

17. Five individuals with only packing knives can be expected to overwhelm fifty adults in a plane.

18. Hijackers in three different planes can be expected to successfully enter the pilot cabin without raising alarm.

19. A person who had never flown a Boeing passanger jet could be expected after a little simulator training to plunge the aircraft successfully between the first and second floor of the side of the Pentagon, even under conditions of extreme stress.

20. A crashed plane can be expected to leave any visible trace.

21. A high rise steel building can be expected to collapse on its own footprint after a raging fire.

22. Debris from a crashed plane can be expected to be found many miles from the crash site.

The compound probability of the above events is the product of the individual probabilities or 0.1**22 (0.1 in the 22 exponential). The actual figure is so small that it practically nears zero.

If one accepts the above propositions (even by increasing their probability of occurrence to 0,5), it follows that their compound probability is near zero. In fact, it suffices that a subset of the above propositions be shown to have a compound probability of near zero, to invalidate the official account on 9/11.

While both methods demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the U.S. authorities have fabricated the official account, the question arises why they have done so, what are they covering up, who perpetrated the mass murder of 9/11 and how was it accomplished. These questions are not pursued further here. As long as the above statements of fact are not fully investigated, the U.S. administration must be considered as covering up the crime and thus as the prime suspect in this crime against humanity.