BYU physics professor disputes WTC collapse explanation

[creekster]

The evidence does support what happened. Two planes collided with the twin towers which began to burnm and then coillapsed, tkaing other strucutres witht hem, including WTC 7. The jet fuel weakned the steel superstructure sufficiently that the weight of the towers led to an implosion, which implosion continued as the weight accumulated. The peretrators were hateful exteremists.

This all fits. We all saw it. This evidence does support the observed phenomenon.

THe claims of Jones aand others rely on examining some of the eivdence and asserting that this evidence (such as the powdery smoke on the exterior of th ebuilding that Jones says is typically seen with demolitions) is consistent with another theory but never explaionign why this evidence is UNIQUE to the new theory. IOW, what is it that CAN'T be explained by the traditional explanation? There are many. many a;lternate theoerie that might fit some or most of the eiuvdence, but only the evidence that is impossible to explain should really be examined.

Pluys, you say ythat the quyestions haven't been debunked, but they have. What do you think hasn't been debunked and what are you relkying on to reach that coinclusion?

FInally, you blithely, but skillfully, ignore the quesiton of why and how could the laternate explanation have happened? "Hey buddy, what are youdoing with that crate full of C-$ in the corner of the WTC?" how could this expert demotloion have been set up without notice before and with out a revelation afterwards?

The most plausible explkanation is also the least exciting.

[SoCalCoug]

The evidence does support what happened. Two planes collided with the twin towers which began to burnm and then coillapsed, tkaing other strucutres witht hem, including WTC 7. The jet fuel weakned the steel superstructure sufficiently that the weight of the towers led to an implosion, which implosion continued as the weight accumulated. The peretrators were hateful exteremists.

Here's one of the problems Jones has seen: the jet fuel could not have burned hot enough or long enough to weaken the steel superstructure. He also says fire caused by the materials located in the offices in the building could not have burned hot enough, either. In other words, he is saying that according to the laws of physics, as well as principles engineering, it is physically impossible for the destruction of the towers to have happened as you just described, which is the commonly-accepted explanation.

He's not saying the evidence is merely consistent with another explanation. He is saying the evidence makes the official explanation impossible.

[SteelBlue]

I haven't read the article yet but here's my first question. If it was implosions that brought the structures down, why didn't we hear or see any of them? I've watched several implosions of old stadiums etc... on video and they are audible and visible. Since the whole incident happened live and before our eyes, why didn't anybody report hearing several explosions just prior to the buildings coming down? And for that matter why not just blow the things up via implosions and then blame it on Al-Qaeda? Why bother with the planes?

[SoCalCoug]

If it was implosions that brought the structures down, why didn't we hear or see any of them?

He refers to eyewitness accounts and photos & videotape which he says appear to be evidence of the implosions.

Short answer, he says we did.

[SteelBlue]

Perhaps I should read the article before I post! Sorry.

[MikeWaters]

One skilled person could set all the explosives.

One question is if it wasn't Al Qaeda, who then? What were the motives? Why wouldn't they claim responsibility.

If it wasn't Al Qaeda, and they have stayed quiet......the usual answer is "who profited from subsequent events?"

Also, sometimes it is more convenient to convict the wrong person than it is to say you don't know what happened.

If several of the hijackers are in fact alive, then I think there need to be some serious questions asked.

And if Prof. Jones ends up dead in an accident anytime soon, we should be suspicious.

[ute4ever]

I thought jet fuel burned at 2000 degrees. Isn't that hot enough to melt or soften steel, especially if it has been sprayed all over the internal structure of the buildings?

[creekster]

I have just spent the last hour going through various websited that linked back to Jones' paper. I then googled various topics and, quite honestly, none of my opinions have changed.

-WTC 7 is hard to expalin. But there is a helluva lot of smoke coming out of the building before it collapses; plus the upward rising squibs don't look upward rising to me, they look relatively stationaZry as the building moves downward.

-interpreting video is hard, hard, hard. For example, to conlude, as does the wtc7 website, that the comm. tower fell first based upon that frame by frame analysis is pretty suspect. I clicked through the frasme by frame view a number of times and it seemed to me that it could have easiuly have been part of the collapse, which probably started in the core, where it was suppoerted.

Are there some strange issues? Yes. Can I answer them all? No. OTOH, the most compelling evidecne, to me, is that WTC 1 & 2 fell becasue planes flew into them. WTC 7 is an odd duck, however.

Btw, a physiscist is only marginally more qualified to opine about building collapse than any of us. If he was a structural engineer I would be more impressed.

[SoCalCoug]

This is too funny. Here's a CB post verbatim on the issue, which was titled, "I spoke with father about [t]his last night":

He is a civil engineer and a retired Green Beret with an expertise in demolitions (he spent some time in an Engineernig group as well). His opinion was that the steel could have easily lost its load bearing capability with the amount of jet fuel that was burning in the building. To him it did not appear that there were explosives that detonated at the bottom of the building, he thought the building just went straight down due to the force of the upper floors falling onto the next floors down. This is his opinion and he has not researched it, but I trust him more then I trust a physics professor at BYU.

Good enough for me!

I re-read that article again last night and went through one of the sites that he refers to.

To me, the issue is an important one. But I think my biggest frustration is how many people are simply dismissing his hypothesis out of hand, because they can't accept the ramifications. That's cognitive dissonance. You ignore facts because they don't mesh with your belief system.

I love to look at crackpot conspiracy theories. No, it's not because I believe them. It's because it's entertaining, and it's an interesting diversion for me (who argues for a living) to identify the faulty premises and unreasonable leaps in logic.

I have found that while there are, of course, quite a few crackpot theories surrounding 9/11, there are also many more reasonable and logical questions than I had expected when I first started looking at them.

I hope this paper gets some scholarly discussion going, and then some real investigation into the issue.

Is there anyone who cannot truly agree that if Professor Jones' hypothesis is true, there are some very significant questions that need to be answered. Is it not worth serious investigation?

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

But I think my biggest frustration is how many people are simply dismissing his hypothesis out of hand, because they can't accept the ramifications. That's cognitive dissonance. You ignore facts because they don't mesh with your belief system.

Hmm, why does that sound like my mission to the bible belt....