Physics Professor Explores Explosion Demolition Hypothesis on 9/11
If you want to be notified the next time I write something, sign up for FREE email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
I’ve got this alert today by email. Honestly, when I first read the title “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” I said to myself; not again! But then went on to explore what’s in the research. And to be honest with you, the guy caught my attention.
As he says in his own words, “Likewise, the notion that the �explosive demolition� hypothesis should not be debated since it would imply a �conspiracy theory� departs from good science as well as from numerous historical precedents of empirical conspiracies. Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics.”
Therefore, I’m not going to go through his detailed, simplified, scientific, rational research. I’ll just quote his conclusion and leave it for you to read the details of his findings if you like. In fact, I think reading the conclusion will be fair enough to give you and idea that this research still confirms that 9/11 is not only what we saw on TV, and it uncovers some of the lies that politicians used and still use all the time to accuse Muslims and Arabs for something that they might have never done, or if they did, then it is a part of a bigger plan that goes beyond any religion or ethnic. This group of so called Arab Muslim terrorist stand for their own believes, which unfortunately happens to be inline with other�s plan.
So here we go…
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
By Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84604
ABSTRACT
In writing this paper, I call for 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….
CONCLUSIONS
I have called attention to glaring weaknesses in the �final� reports funded by the US government and shown evidences for a likely alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives. The �explosive demolition� hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not �junk science.� It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.
A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. Questioning (preferably under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed � and others as outlined above � should proceed in the United States.
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.
To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings � acquired mostly by private parties � which it admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, photos and analyses of the molten metal (probably not molten steel) observed in the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the international community of scientists and engineers immediately. Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team of researchers. The explosive-demolition hypothesis will be considered: all options will be on the table.
AFTERWARD
In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the carefully planned use of explosives. I have presented ample evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is testable and falsifiable and yet has not been seriously considered in any of the studies funded by the US government.
At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis. These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means endorse all such ideas. For example, the video �In Plane Site� promotes the theory that a �pod� holds a missile under the wing of the 757 which hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Careful inspection of the undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the explanation that the so-called �pod� was merely a reflection from the bulged undercarriage (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). I find that the �pod theory� is very weak and distracts from central issues.
Again, there is a notion that something other than Boeing jetliners hit the WTC Towers (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Scrutiny of photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in fact hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). A March 2005 article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and proceeds to ridicule the whole �9-11 truth movement� (Chertoff, 2005). Serious replies to this article have already been written (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005; serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm).
Those espousing weak or untestable claims should realize that they may be damaging the effort to achieve a rational debate of important issues by poisoning the process with �junk science�. Likewise, the notion that the �explosive demolition� hypothesis should not be debated since it would imply a �conspiracy theory� departs from good science as well as from numerous historical precedents of empirical conspiracies (Jones, 2005). Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics (Mooney, 2005).
Enjoy this post? Get future updates sent to you for free! Join by 
7 Comments on “Physics Professor Explores Explosion Demolition Hypothesis on 9/11”
i avoided putting this story on my blog for fear of comments like “walak shoo hal jam3a illi bitlimm heik nas nas 3indak?”
hehehe…
sharul baleyat ma ud7ek
There is a big problem here. The author (somewhat admittedly) is saying that since no models or real buildings were as susceptible to commercial jetliners crashing into them as they would be to pre-positioned explosives, it suggests an inside job. What we clearly have is another agenda-based scientist looking for his 15 minutes of fame. I have heard people over and over again explain what a surprisingly impressive case is made in The Da Vinci Code in its case against Christianity. Although fiction, it claims to be based in factual information drawn from art history, Church history and other sources. The author claimed those sources were 100% accurate. I finally paid attention to the hype when my father (also a physicist, I might add!) pointed out that the elements are surprisingly convincing, even to him. He is non-religious, but doesn’t have any anti-Christian agenda. Anyhow, when I first looked at it, I recognized without going past the very NAME that it was agenda-based and unreliable. That is, though the author asserts great knowledge of art history, he uses the name “Da Vinci” as the artist’s identification, not “Leonardo,” which ANYONE with a small amount of art history expertise (like me…a small amount) would know. When I went into some of his other bases for his assertions, I found numerous blatant, obvious flaws. How did I find these flaws? They were based in some areas of knowledge that I know a little about, and some things that I know a lot about.
Now if I read “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” I may be impressed, mainly because I am a moron when it comes to physics. Do I agree with the assertion that legitimate theories should be examined? Yes, to a point. But the problem is, what happen on 9/11 isn’t that difficult to ascertain. So how long to we spend entertaining every notion that a scientist of activist comes up with? Should we have done the same thing in Oklahoma City? Should we have a million different theories given credibility and examined exhaustively every time some monster decides it would somehow please God to blow a bunch of innocent people to pieces? There comes a time to put to rest the conspiracy theories, especially since they are almost always false.
While he gives the appearance of not being agenda-based, based on his statements that other theories are superfluous, I am not wholly convinced. After all, it’s his own theory that he wants showcased!
Philip,
Congratulations! Your get an A+ in line-by-line repetition of the cover-up propaganda of your masters. You may think you are doing your country a favor, but you are nothing but a well-trained camp follower like the majority of the population of the USA (or as Eric Hufschmid calls it: The Un-informed Sheeple of America).
Apparently you choose to believe that Tim McVeigh actually caused the demolition in the Oklahoma City bombing because that is what you are being told. If you stopped up and used your brain for a bit of thinking instead of only using it for memorizing propaganda served by large media corporations, then you would have realized years ago that:
1) A truck with home-made explosives parked several meters from a steel enforced concrete structure could not have caused that much structural damage.
2) A blast sends its energy out in expanding concentric circles, so the pillars of the building would have been affected in a symmetrical shape, provided that the truck blast was the real reason behind the collapse.
3) Eye-witnesses reported hearing TWO blasts and since a truck bomb can only explode once there is one blast too many.
4) In the first hours (before the media could be muffled) there were reports of that un-exploded explosive devices were found in the building.
5) A government office connected to the so-called intelligence community (I don’t remember which agency) was empty as all its employees by pure coincidence decided to take a day off on the day of the blast (it was a completely normal week day).
6) The police officer who was first on the scene to help people out of the building was to be awarded a medal of honor by Oklahoma City, but he committed suicide (reportedly he both slit his wrists and shot himself in the head with a gun) three days before the ceremony. Is that the action of a man about to be honored and who had alerted local reporters that he had evidence that the bombing was a scam?
Sorry, but you do not need to have a PhD in logic deduction to realize that even if only some of my above points can be documented then something is seriously smelling like a scam and that should be enough to require a thorough impartial investigation.
Calling it a conspiracy theory or declaring those Americans who want real answers for un-patriotic is a typical propaganda reaction to hide the FACT that no answers are given at all!
Avoiding answering is not proof that a theory is false - to the contrary. IF a theory is false, then WHY are the people responsible doing everything they can to avoid giving any answers to concrete questions?
I recommend that you watch “Painful Deceptions” by Eric Hufschmid, which raises some very reasonable questions about 9/11.
If you try to watch it without being clouded by your feelings on the topic, then you will realize that there are A LOT of unanswered questions, that most of the theoretical answers are logical and well-reasoned, and that the only response from your government has been to try to discredit the people asking the questions instead of addressing the questions.
Your head is there because you are supposed to think with it - otherwise you would have been born with a loudspeaker with a radio receiver instead!
Thomas,
First…what would be the motive of the federal government to blow up a federal office building? Timothy McVeigh gleefully admitted to the act. Hey…he’s a “right winger.” Shouldn’t I be on his side? Perhaps there were other devices planted. Very well, but then who planted them? McVeigh was not the only perp. I’d look to Terry Nichols. As for the CIA office, I know nothing of it. But as I have said before, take ANY event, ANY disaster, and I will find you a variety of well-documented, exceptionally convincing treatises on the topic. In most cases, enough research will bring 2 conflicting — yet equally convincing — theories. A lot of these impressive secret documents and great infromation is fraudulent, or sources are made up (or “unnamed for their protection.”) Here’s a good example I got from someone on another message board who was trying to prove that Israel controls the US. Here is a copy of his comment:
“This explains everything: ‘I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.’– Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to cabinet member Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Y’Israel radio.” There is only one problem with this documented source: it never happened. A Middle East accuracy research group, made up of various ethnicities, checked it out, as it has been widely circulated (when I Googled the quote, I found predominantly white supremacists, Christian Identity hate groups, Isalmo-fascists, and misled Muslims on message boards). Turns out the reporter on the supposed cabinet meeting said the statement was never made. There was no such broadcast aired. The original source? A pro-Hamas “news” organization. A columnist (an American one, I think) used the original source and put the quote in her column, putting it into heavy circulation. In my Google search, I was surprised to see how widely the quote is used as “proof” of Jewish and/or Zionist treachery. So naturally I am suspicious of any “special knowledge” conspiracy reports by Joe Whoozit about how he knows that George Bush’s evil twin Percy is impregnating inner city women and selling crystal meth to jaded upper middle class teens.
I am not saying that the 9/11 stuff should not get investigation to some degree. Prove ‘em wrong, I say. But there comes a point where you have to ask yourself if you waste time and resources ad nauseam chasing every “well thought out” theory. If we did that, every individual in the world would be constantly enmeshed in some plot investigation. It would be like some sort of worldwide reality TV show. And anyone who has ever watched reality TV knows that cannot be good! The crazy thing is, there are a few problematic premises to begin with:
1) Terrorists are not stupid people. Barbaric in action, yes, but not lacking in intelligence nor sophistication. To use a worn-out example, Hitler was evil and barbaric…but not dumb. The man was, in fact, a genius. Only he was an evil genius. Why would a terrorist organization not be able to orchestrate 9/11? The WTC aspect was a “success,” if you want to call it that. The Pentagon strike was off a good bit. The White House attempt was a failure, but largely only because the passengers on that flight found out from family members what was assumedly going to happen. Yet part of the assertion here is that the terrorists were not well-trained. Who says?
2) Countless physicists, demolitions experts, and the like have examined the 9/11 info and come to the same conclusions. They are not that spectacular. The size of the WTC was spectacular; the result of the attack was not. They were well engineered on one end, but their fatal flaw lay in the connecting bolts that held each floor in place. They were well designed to resist the effects of sway, both by high winds and even by physical impact. But they buckled under the combined pressure of intense heat from burning and exploding jet fuel as well as the various large chunks of debris falling from floors above and compounding. Once one floor was compromised, everything above, with its full weight, was dropped onto the floors below, each one adding to the weight exponentially. Thus the straight-down collapse. The only positive of this is that it prevented a toppling away from the site to surrounding areas, which would have multiplied the horror. The thing is, this is not really that difficult to understand, and it certainly does not require planted bombs. In fact, even very well located bombs would have had a difficult time achieving a collapse, since the continued burning of the fuel is what finally made the supports buckle (hence the delay between the crashes and the collapses).
3) I had to bring my dear old dad into this again, but I have mentioned these theories to him, and he laughs at them. He said that these guys just want some fame, that the mechanics of the collapse is basically first-year physics. Perhaps I will forward the article to him and get his 2 cents.
Oh, and I DO think, Tom…I just come up with very different conclusions than you.
By the way, what would you know? You’re just a European!
Ha! I actually did that to pique you based on a comment made about Europeans in another post! Kidding!
Woo-hoo! My dear old dad weighed in! He has a lot of experience with explosives, as used in weapons, and their effects on targets such as buildings and military hardware. He worked well over 30 years in the munitions and military technologies field. Anyhow, here is his analysis:
Despite all the experience of me and my contemporaries and all of those before us there is one thing I can say about weapons and their effects: Expect surprises. Even though we have developed and refined models of weapon effects over many years, when there is a new development in weapons the likelihood is high that the existing models won’t adequately predict the effects of the new weapons on their targets. That is, when something dramatically new happens (like a fuel laden airliner crashing into a tall building) don’t trust your models; take the new empirical data and start over.
So, looking at the twin towers alone, I don’t think that Jones is making a very strong case for something suspicious being involved. But, if the video and pictures he references are authentic, then WTC7 is a whole different story. I don’t know if Jones is kooky enough to point us to video and pictures from some other building that was intentionally demolished and call it WTC7 or not. I was able to find evidence that many of his own colleagues at BYU don’t agree with his hypothesis.
One problem with his hypothesis is that he doesn’t present a credible scenario or motive. Who would have done it and why? Does he think the explosives were prepositioned by the same people that flew the planes into the buildings? If so, why would they crash the planes into the buildings to kill maybe 200 more people? Why not just detonate the explosives and kill 2700? If terrorists planted the explosives, how did they accomplish that in a very secure, very large office building?
Or does he think that the “government” planted them? If so, when and why? Does he also think that the “government” flew the planes into the buildings? He hints at the possibility that the CIA might have destroyed WTC7 to maybe cover up what they were doing there — possibly thinking that it might be exposed during the handling of the crisis. I think this is highly unlikely; there are much less catastrophic means of destoying the contents of rooms. And it would have been practically impossible to accomplish in the few hours between the plane impacts and the collapse of WTC7. Unless the explosives were already in place, which I seriously doubt.
Whether or not Jones’ concerns are well founded there is one thing that is pretty much certain: Al Qaeda planned and executed the attacks. The evidence is overwhelming and they have admitted it.
Thomas, here are answers to your Oklahoma City questions
1) A truck with home-made explosives parked several meters from a steel enforced concrete structure could not have caused that much structural damage. — Oh yes it could, and more.
2) A blast sends its energy out in expanding concentric circles, so the pillars of the building would have been affected in a symmetrical shape, provided that the truck blast was the real reason behind the collapse. — You cannot guarantee anything in an explosion. But I would have to read more about the details.
3) Eye-witnesses reported hearing TWO blasts and since a truck bomb can only explode once there is one blast too many. — Perhaps there were 2 blasts. That doesn’t make it any less of an act by terrorists. McVeigh did not act alone.
4) In the first hours (before the media could be muffled) there were reports of that un-exploded explosive devices were found in the building. — “There were reports of…” always means the typical scurrilous “undocumented source.” Totally unreliable. This could be better defined as “rumors.”
5) A government office connected to the so-called intelligence community (I don’t remember which agency) was empty as all its employees by pure coincidence decided to take a day off on the day of the blast (it was a completely normal week day). — I already addressed this.
6) The police officer who was first on the scene to help people out of the building was to be awarded a medal of honor by Oklahoma City, but he committed suicide (reportedly he both slit his wrists and shot himself in the head with a gun) three days before the ceremony. Is that the action of a man about to be honored and who had alerted local reporters that he had evidence that the bombing was a scam? — Who knows why he killed himself? Good heavens. So now everyone who puts a gun to his head is part of a massive cover-up? Certain right wingers (the kooky ones) tried to pull the same thing regarding Vince Foster’s suicide in the Clinton Administration. Sometimes people crack under pressure, especially when there is something horrible involved like OK City. The things he must have seen (there was a daycare center in the place) probably haunted his mind. Perhaps his wife was having an affair. Perhaps he had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Let the guy rest..
Hey, Thomas…maybe we could just settle our differences in a steel cage match!