Sources:
Deseret Morning News, November 10, 2005
Title: “Y. Professor Thinks Bombs, Not Planes, Toppled WTC”
Author: Elaine Jarvik
Brigham Young University website, Winter 2005
Title: “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”
Author: Steven E. Jones
Deseret Morning News, January 26, 2006
Title: “BYU professor’s group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11”
Author: Elaine Jarvik
Faculty Evaluator: John Kramer
Student Researchers: David Abbott and Courtney Wilcox
Research into the events of September 11 by Brigham Young University physics professor, Steven E. Jones, concludes that the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings is implausible according to laws of physics. Jones is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation “guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.”
In debunking the official explanation of the collapse of the three WTC buildings, Jones cites the complete, rapid, and symmetrical collapse of the buildings; the horizontal explosions (squibs) evidenced in films of the collapses; the fact that the antenna dropped first in the North Tower, suggesting the use of explosives in the core columns; and the large pools of molten metal observed in the basement areas of both towers.
Jones also investigated the collapse of WTC 7, a forty-seven-story building that was not hit by planes, yet dropped in its own “footprint,” in the same manner as a controlled demolition. WTC 7 housed the U.S. Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Many of the records from the Enron accounting scandal were destroyed when the building came down.
Jones claims that the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) ignored the physics and chemistry of what happened on September 11 and even manipulated its testing in order to get a computer-generated hypothesis that fit the end result of collapse, and did not even attempt to investigate the possibility of controlled demolition. He also questions the investigations conducted by FEMA and the 9/11 Commission.
Among the report’s other findings:
No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns.
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?” Jones 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, or the 9/11 Commission.
With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattered concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling. “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.”
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 twenty minutes in any given location.
Molten metal found in the debris of the WTC may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite. 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.
In January 2006 Jones, along with a group calling themselves “Scholars for 9/11 Truth,” called for an international investigation into the attacks and are going so far as to accuse the U.S. government of a massive cover-up.
“We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on September 11,” the group said in a statement. “We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad.”
The group is headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, and is made up of fifty academicians and experts including Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush’s first term.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
Similar Posts:
- None Found






This claim has been thoroughly disproven by every independent, authoritative investigation by experts in demolition, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, physics, aviation and architecture. You can find a lengthy list of the investigations and results on the Popular Mechanics and National Geographic websites.
Then there’s bin Laden’s TWO televised confessions to 9/11, those pretty well spoil conspiracy theories.
You forgot to mention a couple of important factors: Jones was fired from BYU for preaching his conspiracy theory, and the story was removed from the BYU website. Are you censoring facts to make the story more palatable?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
The co-chairs Keane and Hamilton, write that they considered perjury charges against NORAD and FAA for changing their evidence.
John Farmer, the Chief Counsel of the 9/11 Commission writes that the US Administration instructed someone to give false evidence to the commission. 60% of the members of the commission now say they were set up to fail. Therefore we need a proper investigation. Search “hunt the boeing” to see clearly that wings and tail-section vanished from the Pentagon crash-site.
I’ve tried twice to leave a comment here, but it does not take.
The myriad lies surrounding the official story re 9/11 is the “censored story” beyond which all other pale, as ever more people are understanding. In order to keep its credibility, PROJECT CENSORED needs to realize that and deal with it convincingly.
Jim:
Actually, the Popular Mechnics article and NatGeo documentaries have themselves been definitively debunked by researchers in the 9/11 Truth movement, using evidence from the same disciplines you mention (demolition, mechanical engineering, etc.). As well, you are blatantly wrong about bin Laden: he never once “confessed” to 9/11; rather, he simply made post-9/11 statements in support of the 9/11 “attack.” In fact, the FBI does not even include 9/11 on bin Laden’s “most wanted” poster because, in the words of their own spokesperson, “We have no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”
Re your comments on Dr. Jones, they are ad hominem; rather than provide a single piece of evidence that the science behind his paper is faulty, you simply attack the man. Not exactly good debate etiquette.
There is ample evidence – including scientific, physical and other – that the “official story” of the attacks is weak, if not entirely hokum. For a good primer on this, try: http://guerrillaunderground.ning.com/profiles/blogs/easing-you-into-911-truth-an
Indeed, John Duddy notes that the two chairmen of the 9/11 Commission themselves have stated in their book, unequivocally, that the Commission was, in their own words, “set up to fail.” By “fail,” they mean arrive at a clear, supportable, accurate account of 9/11. Add to this the ridiculous number of conflicts of interest on the part of the commissioners themselves – and particularly the Executive Director of the Commission, Philip Zelikow – and you have a recipe for whitewashing.
Dr. Jones is to be commended for his important contribution to this subject. And he richly deserves his place on this list. Yet his contribution is only one of hundreds – if not thousands – of pieces of either direct or circumstantial evidence to support the “alternative theory” that there was complicity on the part of individuals and agencies in the U.S. government (and probably) military in the “false flag” attacks of 9/11.
Conspiracies and Degrees are irrelevant to physics.
It is amazing however that so many Americans cannot understand grade school physics for themselves. Why haven’t physicists demanded to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers? How do they do physics without data?
Try finding the total weight of one of those floor assemblies that may or may not have pancaked.
Why should we listen to physicists talk about Black Holes and Big Bangs if they can’t build a model of the north tower that can collapse?
.
Reinforced concrete turned to dust, not when it hit ground, but ON THE WAY DOWN. To believe the official version of events requires a belief in the supernatural. If Allah changed the laws of physics to benefit terrorists, we’re fucked!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20039