Scientist Supports 9-11 Demolition Theory
November 17, 2005
A well-respected professor of physics has presented a paper for peer-review publication that supports with evidence the theory that pre-positioned explosives brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center and WTC 7, a provable hypothesis that has been completely ignored by government investigators and the controlled press.
Shortly after the destruction of the World Trade Center, I reported about the evidence and eyewitness accounts that pointed to explosives having been used to demolish the three skyscrapers that collapsed on 9-11. In the four years since, with photographic evidence and eyewitness reports supporting the controlled demolition theory, it is the most likely explanation for the otherwise unexplained destruction of the twin towers and the mysterious collapse of the 47-story building known as WTC 7.
Although a great deal of evidence points supports the controlled demolition theory, the mainstream media has consistently ignored the possibility and the evidence that contradicts the official version that secondary fires caused the collapses. The fact that the controlled press censors any discussion of the evidence of explosions in the WTC was obvious last August when I invited William Rodriguez, a survivor, to Chicago to present his testimony of his experiences in the North Tower. Not a single reporter from the mainstream media networks bothered to attend the 9-11 Symposium to hear Rodriguez, the former custodian of the stairwells, recount his dramatic experience of the worst terror attack in U.S. history.
Rodriguez, a national hero who remained in the burning tower helping firemen and saving lives up until the minute it was destroyed, presents testimony that contradicts the official version. Most importantly, he describes a massive explosion in a lower basement of the North Tower seconds before the airplane struck the building. Because his testimony contradicts the official version, the controlled press avoids discussing William Rodriguez or his observations as did the 9-11 Commission Report for which he testified.
Now, Steven Earl Jones, a highly regarded professor in the department of physics and astronomy at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, has thrown down the scientific gauntlet and called for an independent, international scientific investigation “guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations” of the hypothesis that pre-positioned explosives brought down the three WTC towers.
“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,” Jones wrote. “Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all.
“I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the U.S. government,” Jones wrote in his paper entitled “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”
“The ‘explosive demolition’ hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony,” Jones wrote. “It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.
“None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all,” Jones notes. Because this theory has not even been investigated, “the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11 is far from compelling,” he says. “It just does not add up.
“Questioning (preferably under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed,” he said, “should proceed in the United States.”
Jones’ 9,000-word paper contains evidence to support the explosive demolition theory. While the professor’s analysis and call for “a serious investigation of the hypothesis” has been reported in the Deseret Morning News and the CBS television affiliate KUTV in Utah, the national mainstream media has ignored it.
Jones begins with the collapse of WTC 7, the 47-story building owned by Larry Silverstein, which fell neatly into its foundation for no apparent reason at 5:20 p.m. on 9-11. While Silverstein has admitted on camera that he decided to “pull” the building and then watched it come down, Jones provides solid scientific reasons why he thinks pre-positioned explosives were used to demolish the tower. ”WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically – even though fires were randomly scattered in the building,” Jones wrote. A symmetrical collapse would require the “pulling” of most or all of the support columns, he says, something which would be highly unlikely without the aid of explosives. Furthermore, the buildings all fell too quickly. ”Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics,” Jones asks.
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the ‘official’ theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely,” he wrote. “On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and symmetrical collapse of buildings. Even with explosives,” Jones says, “achieving such results requires a great deal of pre-planning and expertise.”
The government reports failed to consider the controlled demolition hypothesis and the 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7, “a striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really happened on 9-11,” Jones wrote. The fact that no steel-reinforced high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire, although many have been demolished with explosives in precisely the same manner as the three that fell on 9-11, lends credence to the controlled demolition theory.
The quote from Dr. Jonathan Barnett, an official investigator, that steel members appeared to have been “partly evaporated” is “particularly upsetting to the official theory,” Jones wrote, because it is impossible for fires to “generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000 degrees (F) 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 temperature,” Jones says.
This is consistent with an eyewitness account given to me shortly after 9-11. The eyewitness was standing on Church Street looking at the South Tower when he observed “a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.” The emissions of light were accompanied by “a crackling sound,” and occurred immediately before the tower collapsed, the witness said.
Another important piece of evidence, which I discovered in 2002, was the presence of molten metal in the basements of all three demolished towers. I learned that molten steel had been found in the basements through interviews with Peter Tully, of Tully Construction, and Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Both men were involved in the removal of the WTC rubble.
Jones provides quotes from two engineers, Dr. Keith Eaton and Leslie Robertson, who reported seeing molten metal at the site weeks after the collapses. “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running,” Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the towers, said.
“I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel,” Jones wrote. “The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams,” Jones wrote, “then where did the molten metal come from?”
The squibs or horizontal blasts of smoke and debris, seen in photographs and in video images of the collapses, indicate that pre-positioned explosives were used to demolish all three towers. ”Squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side of the building in rapid sequence provide additional evidence for the use of pre-placed explosives,” Jones wrote.
Jones also points to the unexplained failure of the weight-bearing central core columns of the twin towers as evidence supporting the demolition theory. The fact that the communication mast on top of the North Tower was the first thing seen falling “suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building,” FEMA 2002 report said. ”But how?” Jones asks. “What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building (which supported the antenna) to give way nearly simultaneously? Again, use of pre-positioned explosives to cut the core columns first (standard demolition practice) provides a simple yet elegant explanation,” he says.
Jones reveals how data was tweaked in the government-funded computer models in order to “save the hypothesis” that fires caused the floor trusses to fail and the towers to collapse.
Jones wrote: “What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas? When Jones’ paper is published next year the controlled press will no longer be able to ignore the evidence that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition. To continue to ignore the subject would suggest that the lords of the mass media are complicit in the cover-up of 9-11.
Note: Due to the transfer of information from the original website to this updated format, some article post dates may differ from the date they were originally published. However, most articles contain the actual publish date at the top of the article.