Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

A Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones says: " it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero".

deseretnews.com...

"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,"

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.

The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult.

No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns

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

Are people finally getting a clue? Will we finally get an official inquiry? Only time will tell.
- Wu

Are you serious? No one will touch this, too many careers and money for people to admit that it was done for greed.

Originally posted by Master Wu
No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire.

First off that statement is incorrect. Its no steel-framed high-rise building has had a total collapse due to a fire. You can atleast try to get that part right as there is a difference.

I hear this over and over again and its like apples and oranges. The WTC was hit by passenger planes it was not just a fire like people compare it too. There are some slight differences between a fire started with say a cigar and a 767 moving at hundred of miles a hour. Never in history has a plane that big slammed into a building that big. Second the WTC was not even built like alot of other steel framed buildings it had a unique engineering design.



[edit on 11-11-2005 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
First off that statement is incorrect. Its no steel-framed high-rise building has had a total collapse due to a fire. You can atleast try to get that part right as there is a difference.

Aha Right - if you belive in Santa.

So why did the Madrid Tower NOT Collapse due to Fire, that Raged for 24 hours? It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, despite what we are led to believe, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid. In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing.

Furthermore,
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.

Read this REPORT:

www.physics.byu.edu...



Master Wu,
Excellent Find!



[edit on 11/11/05 by Souljah]

If fire could bring down buildings as gracefully as on 9/11 then the demolition business would be bankrupt. It just can't happen, the laws of physics won't allow it. Two explosions were picked up on a seismograph, that is only possible if huge bombs went off under the two towers. The huge dust cloud is also evidence of multiple explosions.

Originally posted by Souljah


Aha Right - if you belive in Santa.

So why did the Madrid Tower NOT Collapse due to Fire, that Raged for 24 hours? It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, despite what we are led to believe, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid. In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing.

"no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone?" LOL thats even more wrong then the first statement, atleast he remembered to add the Steel part.

But O yes the the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain. Check your facts since several top floors collapsed onto lower ones due to that fire. That was a collapse not a total collapse true but a collapse.

But is it really that hard to understand the differences between how that fire started in spain and how the fire started at the Towers? It might be hard to see but I think you can figure it out.

Originally posted by Souljah

Furthermore,
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.

Read this REPORT:

www.physics.byu.edu...

You think Steel has to reach its evaporation point to fail? Thats funny. Steel starts to get soft long before it reaches 5,000 degrees. And guess what when it gets soft it weakens. Thats a hard concept to understand I know

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
. Two explosions were picked up on a seismograph, that is only possible if huge bombs went off under the two towers. The huge dust cloud is also evidence of multiple explosions.

Have you ever seen the demolition of a building in person? First they gut most of the building and weaken structure points. This is major construction work you couldnt do this under peoples noses in the building. I have seem a building a fraction of the size of the Towers go down. I was about a quarter of a mile away and you could make out and feel every explosion in your body BOOM BOOM BOOM so on in a big chain its very distinctive.

Without all that pre work of gutting the building you would need even more explosives to do the same job. Plus much more explosives are needed for a massive building like the Towers.

Every single person around the Towers would have clearly heard this if it was brought down by demo charges. There would have been no debate as to what all those people would have heard and you wouldnt need seismograph data to tell you what happened.

ShadowXIX,
I see you are one of those People and I really do not have the Time to Argue with you. You belive what you want to belive, and Ignore every reasearch made, that denys the Offical Story of the 9-11.

Its Your Choice.

Just know, that US Goverment is HIDING 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings.

Why if they do not have ANYTHING to HIDE?

Quote from Shadow: "Have you ever seen the demolition of a building in person? First they gut most of the building and weaken structure points. This is major construction work you couldnt do this under peoples noses in the building. "

Well Shadow, did you know that for the 3 weeks prior to 9-11 a construction company (also owned by the owners of the building) had 'free reign' doing construction projects within the three buildings and that no wtc employee was allowed near them? Survivors of 9-11 have tried to point this out, but no one seems to be listening...

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
If fire could bring down buildings as gracefully as on 9/11 then the demolition business would be bankrupt. It just can't happen, the laws of physics won't allow it. Two explosions were picked up on a seismograph, that is only possible if huge bombs went off under the two towers. The huge dust cloud is also evidence of multiple explosions.

Thank you Ninja,,,case closed.

We arent just talking 1 building but 2 110 story buildings and 1 47 story building. To tell you the truth I dont think any demolition company has ever brought down a building that size (110 stories) in history.

I don't know what video people are seeing, but I saw the top floors fall down through the lower floors. A live video. One at a time, the concrete floors broke away and fell to the next floor. Starting where the fires originated. No squibs, no base explosions, no explosions at all, during the collapse. Both towers.

Steel gets weak as temperatures rise, and brittle as temperatures fall.
Steel can lose half it's strength from only a few hundred degrees increase in temperature.
Steel melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
Jet fuel is combusted at temperatures typically greater than 2,600 F.

Note: Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones is the fusion physics researcher/teacher that mailed the claimed cold fusion article back in the 80's & 90's. The claim couldn't be proven. Sent the day after the original development was announced by B. Stanley Pons of the University of Utah, and Martin Fleishman of Southampton University in England. on March 23, 1989.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by ZPE StarPilot]

"No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire."

this is the greatest statement ever!!!

Souljah, thanks for the good read also...

Originally posted by ZPE StarPilot
I don't know what video people are seeing, but I saw the top floors fall down through the lower floors. A live video. One at a time, the concrete floors broke away and fell to the next floor. Starting where the fires originated. No squibs, no base explosions, no explosions at all, during the collapse. Both towers.

We've all seen the same videos. We're just looking (or not looking) for different things.

For example, you claim that you saw no squibs or other explosions during collapse.

Well, take a look at these frames:

external imageexternal image

There were taken from this video.

You can also find squibs such as these,



in this video.

I suppose it was because you weren't looking for these things, that you did not notice them when you saw the collapses on TV or wherever else.

Steel gets weak as temperatures rise, and brittle as temperatures fall.
Steel can lose half it's strength from only a few hundred degrees increase in temperature.
Steel melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
Jet fuel is combusted at temperatures typically greater than 2,600 F.

A) Steel weakens, loses strength, etc., but it does not have the catastrophic effect you would imagine, as skyscrapers are over-engineered so that they may hold up much more than their own weight. This is why no skyscrapers before or since 9/11 have ever collapsed due to fire, despite how insanely intense some of them were. If heat had the effect you suggest on the steel in these buildings, they would become death traps during office fires. This isn't the case.

B) Very, very few people on either side of the issue will tell you that the steel melted within the WTC, and those people are rather misguided. There is not even evidence of any glowing steel, ie glowing dark red, from a temp. of around 600 or so Celsius, let alone evidence of steel being melted (besides some mysterious puddles around the base). No pictures of heated beams in the debris, or during the fires, etc.

C) Jet fuel will not burn in open air at 2,600 degrees F or higher. Maybe in a jet engine; I don't know in that case. But in open air - no. Hydrocarbon fires rarely burn at, let alone above 700 or 800 degrees Celsius. Special conditions usually have to be met for a hydrocarbon fire to reach even those temps, and none of those conditions were met in the WTC on 9/11. In fact, there was poor ventilation in the towers besides near the windows (meaning lack of oxygen for fuel), near the windows the fires were exposed to the cold open air, and the air within the WTC was in no way pressurized or pre-heated. So to suggest that the fires within the WTC were even at 700 or 800 degrees Celsius is a bit of a leap.

In fact, if you look at the smoke coming from the buildings, it went from a grayish to a rich dark black in a matter of about 10 to 15 minutes or so after plane impact. This has been attributed to the consumption of most of the jet fuel from the crash, and a switch over to office materials for energy for the fires. Black smoke means poor burn. More technically, black smoke means there are uncombusted hydrocarbons in the smoke, or soot, which means the fire cannot make efficient use of its fuel, whether oxygen-deprived or etc. Futher, black, sooty smoke absorbs more heat than lighter smoke and carries it away from the fires. And seeing as how the smoke on 9/11 turned black, I wouldn't say there were exactly raging infernos of thousands of degrees in there. More like quickly weakening fires, with blackening smoke, struggling not to slowly die out.

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/11/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Black smoke means poor burn. More technically, black smoke means there are uncombusted hydrocarbons in the smoke, or soot, which means the fire cannot make efficient use of its fuel, whether oxygen-deprived or etc. Futher, black, sooty smoke absorbs more heat than lighter smoke and carries it away from the fires. And seeing as how the smoke on 9/11 turned black, I wouldn't say there were exactly raging infernos of thousands of degrees in there. More like quickly weakening fires, with blackening smoke, struggling not to slowly die out.

I disagree.

Black smoke can certainly be an indication of such, however it is not always an indication for lack of oxygen etc.


Do these fires look oxygen starved?






Many times black smoke can be what is burning and not the state of the fire.

It is hardly conclusive evidence of a dying fire.


Also steel can weaken from difference of temperature, as well as intensity of heat. Different parts of the beams will twist if at signifigantly different temperatures.


Please stop saying that the WTC towers were not brought down by fire alone. I think we have all seen the footage of commercial airliners smashing into the buildings. It is unfair to compare such a fire to normal office fire for two reasons.

1. The massive damage caused by the impact of the planes.

2. The fact that the fires started throughout whole floors all at once. Office buildings are designed to withstand gradual fires, not immediate conflagarations.

Thanks

[edit on 11-11-2005 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Black smoke can certainly be an indication of such, however it is not always an indication for lack of oxygen etc.

True enough, but I don't think the WTC was an exception. Aside from turning black, there was about the same amount of smoke, if not less (certainly no more), meaning about the same quantity of fire, with no additional fuel being added (meaning the darkening can not be attributed to sudden over-abundance of fuel), started producing much darker smoke. Also, uncombusted hydrocarbons (soot, black smoke) may not mean lack of oxygen, but certainly mean unhealthy burn. Based on this information, I think it's safe to say that the change in smoke color meant nothing good for the fires in the WTC.

Please stop saying that the WTC towers were not brought down by fire alone. I think we have all seen the footage of commercial airliners smashing into the buildings. It is unfair to compare such a fire to normal office fire for two reasons.

1. The massive damage caused by the impact of the planes.

Yes, there was obviously damage done by the impacts of the planes.

However, this "massive damage" was a loss of less than 15% of the perimeter columns in the region of damage in either building according to FEMA's own research (around 10% in the region struck with the South Tower, and 13% with the North), and can be easily verified with some personal investigation.





Above are diagrams showing perimeter column damage of the North and South Towers from the FEMA report.

The number of core columns taken out is unknown but most definitely a minority. I believe NIST or some other agency has estimated 2 core columns may have been taken out (ie, severed) by the engines of the planes (apparently the only parts that are expected to have went in very far while remaining somewhat intact - er, besides that paper passport) in each building, while there were between 44 and 47 core columns total (too bad we don't have the blueprints, eh).

So the damage dealt is only "massive" when massive means a small minority of columns were compromised. And skyscrapers are over-engineered to hold up much more than their own weight in case of such events, so they won't simply crumble when so many columns fail from such a disaster.

2. The fact that the fires started throughout whole floors all at once. Office buildings are designed to withstand gradual fires, not immediate conflagarations.

This makes little difference. A sudden fire on multiple floors, lasting around an hour, still do not compare to a fire spreading to more floors over time and then burning for some 17 hours (Caracas Tower). It wouldn't be hard to imagine which building should have the worse damage to its steel.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
It is unfair to compare such a fire to normal office fire for two reasons.

1. The massive damage caused by the impact of the planes.

2. The fact that the fires started throughout whole floors all at once. Office buildings are designed to withstand gradual fires, not immediate conflagarations.

Thanks

[edit on 11-11-2005 by LeftBehind]

People love to leave that part out when comparing WTC to fires like those in Madrid because that hurts their case. One single gallon of gasoline packs the explosive wallop of 14 sticks of dynamite. How many gallons of jet fuel did those planes have in them at impact? They were cross country flights so they most have had alot. Plus the Kinetic energy Boeing 767 flying at 500+mph

Its massive amounts of energy of explosive force the type of force that weakens structures, blows away fire-retardant foam that coats steal beams and severes pipes of fire protection sprinkler systems.

Comparing the WTC to a fire like that in Madrid it just foolish.


link

Bsbray are you honestly trying to say that 767's crashing into the building only caused minor damage?

Does that even make sense to anyone?


You might as well show the entry wound from a .45 caliber hollow point and say "the amount of brain matter taken out is unknown but it is most definitely a minority."


If it's unknown, how is it most definitely a minority?

How is anything unknown definitive either way?



[edit on 12-11-2005 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind

I disagree.

Black smoke can certainly be an indication of such, however it is not always an indication for lack of oxygen etc.


Do these fires look oxygen starved?

Actually yes, they do.

Fires that are oxygen starved are normally yellow or orange in colour. Fires that are not oxygen starved, or or getting its 'heat' from another source such as a gas will appear BLUE!

Edit: Also thank you for this brilliant article! I am really glad to see some people who have a background and knowledge in Physics applying it to this.

[edit on 12-11-2005 by ekul08]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
You might as well show the entry wound from a .45 caliber hollow point and say "the amount of brain matter taken out is unknown but it is most definitely a minority."


[edit on 12-11-2005 by LeftBehind]

That is a pretty flawed comparison. A .45 to the brain will cause SIGNIFICANT BRAIN DAMAGE if it dosen't KILL YOU STRAIGHT AWAY! But a .45 to the leg, or arm might not be considered that much damage.

The point is that the plane's diddn't take out enough parts of the building that were STRUCTURALLY REQUIRED to keep the building up.

To go back to one of your analogy's; You shoot of someones leg they still have one to walk on. (and in some cases they could probably even limp on the one you shot.)

[edit on 12-11-2005 by ekul08]

quote: Originally posted by LeftBehind:
It is unfair to compare such a fire to normal office fire for two reasons.

1. The massive damage caused by the impact of the planes.

2. The fact that the fires started throughout whole floors all at once. Office buildings are designed to withstand gradual fires, not immediate conflagaration.

quote: Originally posted by ShadowXIX:
"People love to leave that part out when comparing WTC to fires like those in Madrid because that hurts their case. One single gallon of gasoline packs the explosive wallop of 14 sticks of dynamite. How many gallons of jet fuel did those planes have in them at impact? They were cross country flights so they most have had alot. Plus the Kinetic energy Boeing 767 flying at 500+mph

Its massive amounts of energy of explosive force the type of force that weakens structures, blows away fire-retardant foam that coats steal beams and severes pipes of fire protection sprinkler systems."

Let me ask you this then Shadow, why then didn't it collapse right away? According to this way of thinking the building should have collapsed fairly quickly. Let me also ask you this, How could the building collapse as if it were a controlled demolition and your statement both be true at the same time? They can't be. The building damage you describe would have caused an immediate reaction (ie the tower would start leaning or fall over sideways or something normal).

And here is one more question you should ask yourself. Why DIDN'T the towers collapse sideways or in a 'leaning' manner (or even partially sideways or partially leaning)? Maybe coincidentally one tower would fall that way, but TWO? O.K. the odds are already millions to 1 that both would fall that way, but then add a THIRD building - one that wasn't even hit by anything NEAR the damage you describe. Want to guess the odds on that happening? I don't have the brain power to compute billions and billions...

BTW Good posts bsbray.