| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| The Physics and Chemistry of the Collapse of the World Trade Buildings | |
| 2005-11-13 | |
| According to a report in the deseretnews.com (Salt Lake City, Utah), Steven E. Jones, a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Brigham Young University, stated that, âThe physics of 9/11 â including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell â prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong.â In a paper accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year and currently online Jones, calls âfor 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.â
| |
| Posted by:willtotruth |
| #10 Pancake failure. Several parking garages/apartments going up too quickly. Physicist who hasn't seen a pancake failure? Worthless. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-11-13 22:31 |
| #9 This is the same guy who wrote an article in Sci Am, July 1987, titled "Cold Nuclear Fusion". He was working on muon catalyzed fusion, and peer reviewed Pons and Fleischmann's work. He was in the middle of the rush to publication controversy, because he and Pons/Fleischmann had agreed to publish on the same day. Jones is a serious scientist, but no stranger to controversy. The online paper makes interesting reading, with some real eye-buggers: Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence for the use of pre-placed explosives. Regarding this highly-secure building, a NY Times article entitled “Secretive C.I.A. Site in New York was Destroyed on Sept. 11,” provides an intriguing puzzle piece: [...] I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and scientific arguments for the explosive demolition theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people present. Two local universities were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College). The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, all except one attendee agreed (by hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for. The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about it and now agreed that more investigation was needed. He joined the others in hoping that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST plus others held by the FBI would be released for independent scrutiny; photos largely from private photographers (NIST, 2005, p. 81). We call for the release of these data to a cross-disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers. [...] Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs -- really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles. I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I have been able to outline in this treatise. 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. The science is sound. The implications are paradigm-shifting: Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all. [...] None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up. And that fact should be of great concern to Americans and to all those threatened by American military and security units in the wake of the 9-11 events (Ryan, 2004). Use of powerful, pre-positioned explosives in the WTC buildings would imply an “inside job” (Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Clearly, we must find out what really caused the WTC skyscrapers to collapse as they did. Gotta go watch that WTC 7 video.... This oughta get things rolling again. |
| Posted by: KBK 2005-11-13 22:28 |
| #8 ALSO, in the abstract he's pointing at what he thinks are "explosions" that _aren't_ in the area of collapse, and wouldn't _be_ needed in order for the plot to work, if there was one: Once the first pancake starts, there's a cascade failure. You don't need to blow up anything _under_ the pancake, it'll die soon enough as the rest of the building falls on it. |
| Posted by: Phil 2005-11-13 22:16 |
| #7 Finally, I just skimmed the abstract, and found several contradictions. He says everything was melted after the collapse, which was only possible with thermite (although if so and the paper/fuel fires weren't doing anything it would have taken a LOT of thermite to have melted a significant fraction of the steel frame) but then quotes people saying the frame wasn't exposed to that much heat... (and glowing-red hot metal isn't necessarily _molten_ metal! _Molten_ is a different color, much hotter than that!) (And you don't need to heat stuff to molten to get it to lose its strength, and even less than that if you're also relying on thermal stress.) It's not a perfect book, but I would suggest for an understanding of nanoscale material science at that level _Why Things Break: Understanding The World By The Way It Comes Apart_. |
| Posted by: Phil 2005-11-13 22:14 |
| #6 Oh, a couple of side comments: * "Peer review," I have heard, doesn't _always_ mean what everyone thinks it means; it isn't an endorsement of infallability, or anything like that. I could mean "we handed it to some people and they couldn't find any mistakes;" they may not have even been in the right area of specialty. * Tenure makes it harder to fire screwball professors. |
| Posted by: Phil 2005-11-13 22:07 |
| #5 no tarring - my minor was Radiation Physics at San Diego State. My mentor was Lester Skolil - google him and you'll see I have (deservedly) a lot of respect for my betters in Physics...just not Dr. Jones |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-11-13 22:05 |
| #4 What's more, as the heated sections of the structure are expanding but the ends of the structure are not expanding at that rate, it creates a focal point where the structure will tend to bend outward, especially in a structure like the WTC towers which were essentially tubelike metal lattices. (Disclaimer: I'm a former undergrad physics student who intends to return and study materials engineering. I'd rather y'all not tar all physicists by association with Dr. Jones; there are some who do study materials and metallurgy and whatnot along the way...) Anyway, guy named Jones, at BYU... this is pinging on some old neurons. Wasn't he involved in the great Cold Fusion Fracas? |
| Posted by: Phil 2005-11-13 22:00 |
| #3 once again, this should STFU Dr. Jones: fire-proofing of high rise steel and concrete structures accounts for normal combustible loads (furnishings, paper, etc...). Which are also capably fought by most sprinkler systems. Nobody anticipated a full airliners' fuel load and the intense heat it produced. Steel stresses in an elastic (recovers after the stress is gone) and plastic (permanent deformation and loss of strength) range. The application of that much heat alters the range of strength downward, extending the plastic range, leading to catastrophic failure and subsequent impacting as the floors above pancaked. Engineering Materials 101, right, AP? Dr. Jones needs to retire or have his credentials questioned....he's obviously incompetent or a lunatic, and shouldn't be teaching physics |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-11-13 21:44 |
| #2 Physicists don't make good structural engineers. There's a reason we have specialized courses for those folks. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-13 21:07 |
| #1 We should get this guy working on the location of the second shooter on the grassy knoll based on the balistics. |
| Posted by: Clereting Hupogum1920 2005-11-13 21:00 |