Saturday, November 12, 2005

BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC

My Dad (an inactive member of the church, long story for another post) showed me this link on . I have read many web sites and theories claiming that the world trade centers were actually destroyed by explosives coming from the interior of the buildings. I have never been sure wether or not to beleive them. This article on Deseret News is the first that I have seen in a reputable source. Here is the article.,1249,635160132,00.html

My Father has a theory that this guy will soon be excommunicated because he thinks that the church and the republican party are as thick as theives. Anyway, I am curious as to see what happens to one Steven E. Jones. I hope he gets the evidence he is looking for and we can answer this question once and for all. And, for me, it is deep irony that the one guy that has the guts to stand up and demand the truth is a card carrying Mormon.


Jeff Milner said...

I think this Steven E. Jones character is merely trying to make a name for himself. He probably has a book deal going or something.

A school teacher friend of mine, Jason, told me that on the morning of September 11th, 2001, after both buildings had been hit, one of the other teachers at his school - whom was previously an architech - told him that if the jet fuel continued to burn it would reach 5000 degrees at which point the steel would melt.

Before either tower fell the architech clearly stated that when the steel in the fire melted the resulting collapse of the upper floors would set off a change reaction bringing the whole building down. Jason didn't believe him until it actually happened.

It doesn't take a genius to realize airplanes are a little much in the way of "distraction".

I think it was in 1991 when the previous terrorist attempt to bring down the tower used a fertilizer bomb almost succeeded. It wasn't the lack of distraction which foiled that attempt, it was just not a big enough explosion.

It must have been pretty big though, I saw the basement of that tower in 1997 and it looked a lot different with all the support scaffolding than the non-exploded tower's basement.

Ian said...

Jeff, that is an interesting story. However, I have read some scientific explanations that AGREE with the official explanation that say that the fires could only have reached a maximum of 500 Celcius under the conditions that morning.

Here is a link to that source. To reach the high temperatures you are talking about, the fire would have to have been fed with pure oxygen, which is impossible outside of lab conditions.

Jeff Milner said...

A couple of things. First off I meant to say "chain reaction" not change reaction. :)

Reading your link clarified that the first bombing took place in 1993 not 1991 as I thought.

The article you linked to also says, "While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse."

In my mind, if the steel bent due to heat, that is close enough to "melting" to call it that - though technically I now understand the difference.

Either way the article points only to the fuel burning fire as the cause of the building collapses - again a lot more reasonable than to assume a bomb was involved.

Ian said...

I'm no no expert, and these two people disagree as to what happened to the buildings, but they agree on one thing, that the fire probably only heated to about 500 C at the hottest.

Another thing that really gets me is that they took the steel from the site and sold it before studies could have been done. Even if it wasn't done to hide anything, they should have kept it for study...

Ethan said...

I think you have to consider one thing:

IF the planes were a distraction and the buildings were actually prepped with explosives

That means we're looking at a conspiracy that involves hundreds of people directly and thousands indirectly at all levels of government to

execute such an insanely huge plan

and to keep it secret from investigations from multiple governmental agencies, universitites, the press, and armchair researchers.

Can you really believe in such a conspiracy? It's ridiculous.

Here's the truth: 4 planes, Al Qaida terrorists, the end.

Ian said...

I had this great reply all typed up yesterday, but I lost it. Here is a short version of it.

I agree that it seems that it would take a VAST conspiracy to have pulled off the WTC bombings.

I'm not sure that is true. It may be possible that we are preventing ourselves to accept it's possibilty because we think it would be vast.

1.) We know that the FBI or CIA had some idea that there may be some attacks by plane. We have seen the report saying so. We also know that most of the highjackers were being followed by the FBI.

If someone had put together all of the FBI/CIA information, they would have known about the attack on the WTC.

This means they would have only known about it and wouldn't have to set it up.

They could have then got a handful of people and put bombs in the WTC buildings and then waited for the attacks.

I know I sound psyco and all that other stuff, but I think that it's improbable, but not impossible.

Ethan said...

But it wouldn't take a handful of people to prep those buildings.
When buildings are prepped for demolition, it is an involved process. Holes are drilled in concrete, walls are taken out. The argument the BYU professor has isn't that big bombs were put in the building, but that the floors were collapsed one by one in a planned demolition.
To demolish the WTC by just placing bombs on each floor, the bombs would have had to be enormous and obvious and the effect would probably not be the same as a properly prepped demolition.
That means it couldn't have been "just bombs" because this conspiracy is solely based on the observation that the collapse visually resembled a planned demolition. That's the whole basis for this conspiracy (the steel failure as a result of the fire has been repeatedly proven).
A planned demolition would take not only engineers to plan it out, but workment to prep the buidings. It would likely take weeks. All this would have to happen in plain view of building security and tenents.
The only way to do it is to get the Port Authority to turn a blind eye and then keep their mouths shut.
There's just no way.
I think it's also significant that the WTC site was cleaned out by emergency personnell from all over the country who could easily spot evidence of demolition, explosions, arson, etc. Yet they haven't come forward.
Real scientists have repeatedly confirmed the actual events of September 11. There is no missing evidence, there is no unexplained part of the WTC collapse.

Ian said...

I agree that it would probably require an expert demolitions team.
Perhaps I should look into demolitions a little more, but I didn't realize that explosives would need to be on all of the floors. I don't think that was mentioned in Dr. Jones thesis. That would be a feat indeed.

The one thing that I have not been able to find an answer to is the fact that there was pools of melted steel at the base of the WTC buildings. As has been shown and confirmed by several different sources, the fires were not hot enough to melt any steel, only warp it at best.

Why were there pools of melted metal? Why do arial heat detetecting photos show that ground zero had intense heat after the collapse?

That is where the question of Thermite comes in. Thermite would create such pools of metal.

Again, I see your point about the bombs on every floor. That would complicate matters immensely.

Ethan said...

Here's a worthwhile article on the 911 conspiracies.

Ian said...


That is a good article. Many conspiracy theories are debunked, though I think that Dr. Jones adresses some of that.

The one issue that has been left unresolved in my mind is the pools of molten metal at the bottom of the building.

I cannot find any reliable sources (other than some conspiricy web sites that can hardly be trusted) that can explain what the metal was. It is clear from all of the readings (both conspiricy and non) that the fires were not hot enough to create pools of molten steel.

What was it that was at the bottom that stayed hot and melted for days or even weeks?

There is also one discrepency that I found in the popular mechanics magazine. They said that "Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F", but most every other source that I have looked at said that the fire most likely got no hotter than 500 F due to the conditions. Not that it really matters because even 1500 F is not hot enough to melt steel.

Basically, the only unanswered question for me is where did the molten metal come from?