Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: BYU Forms New Theory About 9/11 Attacks

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749

    BYU Forms New Theory About 9/11 Attacks

    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.)
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  2. #2
    Partridge Guest
    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, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at 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

  3. #3
    Partridge Guest
    Heh, you have to laugh - a Tecnorati search for Stephen E Jones brings up a lot of results. The best one being the following from 'Right Wing Pundit':

    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.

    For a thorough debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories, check out this article from Popular Mechanics. [my emphasis]
    On a follow-up post 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.

  4. #4
    911=inside job Guest
    HAHAHAHHA!!!! what a douche he is!!!!

  5. #5
    somebigguy Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Partridge
    Heh, you have to laugh - a Tecnorati search for Stephen E Jones brings up a lot of results. The best one being the following from 'Right Wing Pundit':



    On a follow-up post 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.

  6. #6
    Partridge Guest
    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

  7. #7
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    "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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749
    SERIOUSLY
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749
    SBG had this theory LONG before Dr. whatshisname.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  10. #10
    somebigguy Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    How do you vote???

Similar Threads

  1. I Had A Theory...
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-24-2006, 08:40 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-16-2006, 07:54 PM
  3. BYU Forms New Theory About 9/11 Attacks
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-17-2005, 12:05 AM
  4. My 911 theory
    By aceace in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-13-2005, 05:53 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-23-2005, 01:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •