What is Digg?13 Comments
- thecolor11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU..."
How does this make him more qualified than the engineers who have already analyzed the problem? - prometheus250, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Of the above 8 comments above, how many actually read the academic study currently under peer review at: www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I'd be willing to bet not one of them did. Read the FREAKING study you idiots. It's NOT the same old crap. There is mounting hard evidence for the demolition hypothesis as the most probable explanation for the collapses of WTC7.
There are GAPING HOLES in the progressive collapse theory touted by Dr. Eager of MIT which many academics have already pointed out.
Jet engine fuel does NOT burn hot enough to produce the heat needed to melt the 47 cross beam central core of the WTC towers.
I QUOTE from the actual study:"A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides relevant data.
Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
That’s correct – no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete, symmetrical collapses have indeed occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001.
Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports."
This is just a small portion of a very long research paper. I suggest you actually read it before making any more comments. - mikearagua, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I also read the 9000 words and at least think it's worth a second look and maybe a real investigation. It's not as if a BYU professor is some kind of liberal trying to discredit the bush administration. I don't know if any of the earlier retarded comment posters noted the red state blue state phenomena but Mormons are notoriously red and BYU profs are required to be Mormons AFAIK. For that reason alone it's at least worth reading.
- pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. 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.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Even Bush Inc. is not evil enough to have allowed or participated in allowing an attack on the citizens of the nation. They did use the situation to advance plans that they have been trying to push through for years, but there was no shadowy group outside of Al Queda and its suicide pilots. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The problem is that even well-educated professors can be conspiracy theory nuts. I bet you that there's at least one professor of astro-physics who thinks we never landed on the moon. Should we listen to him too?
I speak from experience. In my college days, I had a computer science professor (with a ***** PhD) who was a downright lunatic and utterly obsessed with conspiracy theories, trying to convert us to his way of thinking. - whodatdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I reposted this story because I felt not enough people were paying attention to it: Please follow the link.
http://digg.com/science/Science_Community_Pleas_for_International_Independent_Investigation_of_9_11 - whodatdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For internet users who have Attention Deficiency Disorder and cannot muster up the time to read the whole paper:
Check out the other engineer/research scientist who has come to the same conclusion as Steve Jones:
http://66.111.201.132/video/cte_07_lo.mov - lacriz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I just finished reading the whole 9000 words.
My conclusion: the scientific clues provided are much more convincing than the "official theory". Nevertheless, neither me nor the author deducts from this, that the "explosives-theory" must be completely true.
But: it is the only theory so far which is able to explain all the evidence (of which a lot is ignored by the official studies).
So if you really care, you should do like prometheus250 suggested: read the 9000 words! In my opinion, it is definitely worth it. - Cander, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Same old crap as always. Even throws in the usual, no fire has ever collapsed a building. Of course no building the size and contruction of the WTC has ever been hit by a plane carrying jet fuel either.
- prometheus250, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here is actual study by Professor Steven E. Jones:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Hold your skepticism until after you have read it please. - MikeDawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm originally from Utah, do I have the right to hate the guy just because he teaches at BYU?
- catsfather, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0To be fair, a plane loaded with aviation fuel is a kind of bomb, so ... the buildings were taken by bombs.
But surely his argument is summed up by a paragraph near the end of the piece:
Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding." - bitwiseplatypus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I don't care if Albert ***** Einstein rises from the dead and says the same thing, I saw planes hit the damn buildings, causing massive explosions, and then I saw the buildings fall. Occam's Razor tells me, therefore, that the buildings fell because they were hit by planes. End of story.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is