BYU Physics Prof. - WTC Demolished?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's what I'm wondering:

The man is not a metallurgist, he's not an engineer, and he's never studied any of the materials or the structures he's talking about. This article relies entirely on video clips and news clippings.

How on earth is it possible to make valid scientific conclusions based on such sources??? Reading that article leaves me convinced that Starship Captain Jones has done nothing but take up space on the internet with conjecture.
 
This article relies entirely on video clips and news clippings.
Click to expand...
So the sources that zejs1 posted (which are cited in the paper) as well as the FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports (which are cited in the paper) are 'video clips and news clippings'?
The man is not a metallurgist, he's not an engineer
Click to expand...
I agree, however those disciplines derive directly from physics, ie metallurgists and engineers must be well schooled in physics.
 
So the sources that zejs1 posted (which are cited in the paper) as well as the FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports (which are cited in the paper) are 'video clips and news clippings'?
Click to expand...

No, those sources were based on good info....Jones's sole basis for challenging these papers was the internet and NYT.
 
Which do you think is the more likely scenario, the WTC collapsed because of the failure of the structure caused by fires from 90,000 gallons of jet fuel, or that somehow thousands of pounds of explosives miracled themselves all through the towers?

The only "cite" Mr. Jones makes of Dr. Eagar's paper is the point that it was impossible for the impact of an airliner alone to knock over one of the WTC towers. He completely ignores the information Dr. Eagar presents about the fires and why the buildings collpased downward instead of falling over. He also can't seem to spell Dr. Eagar's name.

The idea that enough explosived to demolish the WTC towers could be placed without anyone noticing, or anyone talking about it is not credible. The entire theory is rediculous.
 
Hmmm, interesting---some problems though

1. Before imploding a building, contractors remove interior and exterior walls on lower floors so the building rests just on its columns---If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse
2. He is saying there was AN explosion----it would actually take a series of explosions(on different floors) to bring the building down
3. Is he saying the explosions were dynamite or RDX---totally different entities and easy to distinguish
4. How and when would anybody been able to drill into the colums and/or steel beams to set the explosives without anyone seeing it
5. These explosives would be visible for anyone to see and not hidden
6. Who exactly did the government hire to set these explosives? It's not like you just have people go in and set things around---takes a trained "blaster" to do it correctly.
7. How exactly would they cover up these explosive materials that would be left behind---primer chord etc...
8. Who exactly ordered these explosives to be set and when. Since Bush was only in office a few months, was this a conspiracy in the works for years?
 
Last edited:
Funny this came up. For the last 3 yrs, my brother and I have been discussing the above. Our belief is that the towers were 'imploded'. We've seen many imploded buildings (on T V) and there is no doubt in my mind that the WTC was also imploded. Also, I've seen many pictures of the Pentagon after the "other plane" hit it. (?) I saw no airplane parts, no seats, no wreckage of any sort. Believe what you wish to believe. Who did it? I don't know.
 
I'm no physicist or metalurgalist but I am a common sense iscist

If our government was responsible for the collapse how did they ever talk Bin Laden into wearing the ass whippin for it ?

ie metallurgists and engineers must be well schooled in physics.
Click to expand...
And English majors must be well versed in the alphabet but just because you know the alphabet doesn't mean that you can quote Shakespeare
Anybody else besides shootinstudent and LawDog have any specific points from the article they would like to address?
Click to expand...
How about the video of the so called squibs.
They didn't start squibbing until after the building started falling.
Glass windows have a habit of shattering and blowing out their support structure starts collapsing and putting incredible downward pressure on them.
Don't believe me, video your self jumping on an upright drinking glass and watch the "squibs"
 
This does not explain molten metal or nearly free-fall rate of collapse.
But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down.
Click to expand...
 
Toy Airplanes

The jets caught on film were actually toy planes. They were flown by the French. They did this to make us go to war and then make fun of us. I bet the French government together with Michael Moore masterminded the whole thing. Moore did it to make Bush look bad.

Hollywood kicked in with their movie making and special effects knowledge. We know what they think of republicans and conservatives.

Some little green men told all this to me the other night. After which they let me play with super zapper gun. Talk about flat trajectory.
 
Rivers, enough said



If you read the article...

All of it... :p

He only poses the questions and offers possible answers.

Yes, the idea seems preposterous and he is probably as preposterous as his postulations. :D

Note: the designer has agreed that there was a weakness in the design where the floors strut ends were rested on the wall frames and the need for heavy duty anchors was unforseeable.
They planned for possible aircraft impact, but they didn't recognize the weakness in the strut ends. Human error which will give nightmares to the designer for the rest of his life.

May God bless him in that struggle.

Once the floors began to collapse onto one another the smoky and dusty "squibs" were forced out by the greatly increased air pressure.

I am satisfied the building collapsed as a result of the fire weakening the floor struts at the wall connections. When the floors fell INSIDE the walls... I believe they pulled the walls inward, and that caused the "symetrical" collapse of the building which have all seen.

The Professor isn't stupid... he is simply wrong.
 
This does not explain molten metal or nearly free-fall rate of collapse.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there is a more rational explanation for these things than that the building was bombed by magical elves.
 
I don't know, or feel particularly compelled to find out. The evidence suggesting a bombing is already so weak, that I don't believe it makes any difference.

How often thermite is used in building demolition? Or how often molten metal is found at the site of a building demolition weeks after the event? Is that a common occourance in building demolition?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top