Don't drink to much coke DEBUNKER you'll rot your teeth out. My questions are only irrelevent to those who do not understand them. A dog's reflection in a mirror is irrelevent to him/her, however, It is very important to a teenage girl. The only thing irrelevent are your comments.
yes I'll answer your questions Essan.
1) I think there were explosives placed. How many and where is a different question which I obviously can't answer. No one could,without further evidence.
2)you mean if the explosives were only on that one place and the plane had to hit that?
No I don't think so.
3)I think it was a series of smaller ones.
4)IMO it does concur. You can't really see implosions all that well. And yes I'm saying they imploded it, not exploded it.
And physics is very very important in all of this, Essan. You better believe it. The questions were meant for one purpose. Listen carefully Hazzard. They were meant to gauge all of you peoples ability to do physics. That matters because hazzard keeps saying that I couldn't possibly be able to prove his PM people wrong. And says that I can't be right. He can't know either of those things without knowing physics. That makes him a follower and not thinking for himself you get it Essan?
Hazard one more thing in that last post That you quoted, you quoted the part that was about DEBUNKER's Science article not PM, don't mix them up. The science article messed up (on purpose) potential energy. The official report messes up on conservation of momentum which is a step or two after potential energy. This means that the science article is much farther off. Mabey even by factors of 5-10. They however stopped at potential energy (the first step in all of this), so I can never tell how far off they would end up.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
By Elaine Jarvik
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.
Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News"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:
• 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.
Here is another link about the physics prof.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.htmlThe professor will be interviewed by Alex Jones today on his radio show. YOu can listen over the internet. Go to this site for more info
http://www.infowars.com/
more examples of manufacturing strawmen--please sift through this thread and link to my comments where i commented on missles--all you can do is make up lies and shoot them down-- also hydrocarbons cannot comprimise the integrity of steel imbedded deep within concrete after burning for only two hours in fact there have been fires that have burned for over 24 hours and not comprimised the integrity of steel reinforced concrete beams
It must be noted that the demolition of a building requires extensive planning and placement of a large number of explosive charges, a process that takes several days.
