portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation

Latest Mainstream Media to Expose 9/11 WTC Demolition Theory - Pittsburgh Tribune Review

Professor Jones really did his science homework. He supplies links to slow-motion video of collapsing buildings, discuses their well-engineered innards at length and doggedly critiques the official explanation. Jones isn't the first to make this shocking/unbelievable claim (see wtc7.net). But it's hard to imagine anyone making it clearer.

Jonesing on conspiracy theories

By Bill Steigerwald TRIBUNE-REVIEW Sunday, November 20, 2005



You can drive yourself nuts with conspiracy theories.

Many of our fellow Americans already have. Just go to the nearest PC and start googling. The Oklahoma City bombing. TWA Flight 800. The 9/11 terror attacks.

Was Timothy McVeigh actually in cahoots with Iraqis? Were scores of credible witnesses just having simultaneous hallucinations in 1996 when they saw something streaking toward TWA Flight 800? Or were they all really watching a shoulder-fired Stinger missile shot by some al-Qaida type?

Who knows what really happened? How can a good citizen ever find out the truth or anything close to it? Even with the wonders of the Internet, it's somewhere between hopeless and impossible.

Look what happens when you read the academic paper questioning the official version of the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings that Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones recently posted at physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.

Jones is an honest-to-goodness scientist whose specialties are metal-catalyzed fusion, solar energy and something called archaeometry. The 9,000-word abstract, part of a 2006 book called "The Hidden History of 9/11/2001," asks, "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"

Hint: The correct answer is not because two airliners slammed into the buildings and started infernos that softened their steel superstructures and caused them to pancake.

Based on the laws of physics, the virtual indestructibility of steel-framed buildings and the suspiciously fast way WTC towers 1, 2 and especially 7 collapsed, Jones asserts they could only have been brought down the same way Three Rivers Stadium was -- by pre-positioned explosives.

Now, that's a conspiracy!

Professor Jones really did his science homework. He supplies links to slow-motion video of collapsing buildings, discuses their well-engineered innards at length and doggedly critiques the official explanation. Jones isn't the first to make this shocking/unbelievable claim (see wtc7.net ). But it's hard to imagine anyone making it clearer.

His most impressive argument: The mysterious way that WTC 7 -- a 47-story, steel-framed monolith that suffered almost no serious structural or fire damage -- dropped with symmetric precision neatly into its own footprint seven hours after the attacks.

You don't have to be a physicist to see that WTC 7's graceful, 6.6-second demise deserves a perfect 10 in the controlled-demolition event. It's also interesting to know that no steel-framed building in history ever totally collapsed from a fire until 9/11/2001, when three did in about eight hours.

Like any good conspiracy-monger, Jones raises lots of good but unanswerable questions and supplies few answers. He doesn't pretend to know who'd actually do such a terrible thing, or how they managed to pre-place all those explosives without being caught. He doesn't finger the Conspiracy Industry's usual suspects -- the CIA, the Jews, the Michigan Militia, the neocons -- but says it probably wasn't Muslims.

Jones, who wasn't returning calls Wednesday evening, asks only that his hypothesis be investigated scientifically by a truly independent body. That completely rules out the U.S. government -- which is just as well.

No matter how obvious, simple or logical it sounds, you should never completely believe the official version. And given our federal government's sorry track record on truth-telling, that's the only rational thing a good citizen should do.



Bill Steigerwald can be reached at (412) 320-7983 or bsteigerwald@tribweb.com. pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_395972.html
ack! 20.Nov.2005 20:55

don't say that!

> metal-catalyzed fusion

Oh dear ... is he listing the cold-fusion hoax on his resume?

geesh 20.Nov.2005 22:48

kit

>>Oh dear ... is he listing the cold-fusion hoax on his resume?

Yes, he listed his debunking of cold fusion.

Don't you know you aren't supposed to ask the question in the courtroom if you don't already have the answer?

Marvin did it 20.Nov.2005 23:37

Gregoire


thanks 21.Nov.2005 01:16

i feel better now

I'm sure Mr. Steigerwald would've phrased his praise a little differently if he understood the difference ... but I shouldn't be surprised that some "professional journalist" doesn't know jack shit about science, or the history thereof.

McVeigh & The Iraqis???? 21.Nov.2005 07:43

Anarchy-nonymous

When did McVeigh and Iraq ties ever gain traction as a conspiracy theory? The mainstream media always has to couch any discussion of a conspiracy theory in the most absurd terms, so when you read about JFK, RFK, MLK you usually get something thrown in like (the US never landed on the moon). Well, granted there are those theories out there, but they have never gained nearly the kind of traction amongst the masses and the academic/scientific community as the bogus JFK theory or the MLK assassination, which was basically proven to be a government led assassination in Federal District court after a civil suit by the King Family back in 1991. Of course, nobody would touch the story that a government assassination of a major human rights figure DID occur, but look at the amount of press that went into attacking conspiracy theories.

excellent story 21.Nov.2005 10:19

reader

>> some "professional journalist" doesn't know jack shit about science

But Steven Jones does, and regular people all over the world, like this journalist, understand when a country like the US has a history like it does - lies over and over to start wars : incubator babies, Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs, etc. - and when 3 skyscrapers suddenly "fall down" for the first 3 times in history, even one that was never hit by a plane, they don't NEED to all be scientists to get the deal!!

Conspiracy Kook 21.Nov.2005 11:22

Patriot Guy

I wonder how many folks would believe the official line if WTC7's collapse had been the only news of the day. It would have been the only time ever recorded where a concrete-steel building completely collapsed due to a "fire".

I have read the observations of good leftists on this page describing the impossibility of the collapse theory, delegating collapse proponents into the dung heap of conspiracy kooks. I have shown people the collapse of WTC7, only to have them call me a conspiracy theorist. I had one person ask me if I thought that man had landed on the moon. Yet if this had been the only story that day, everyone who saw the video would believe their own eyes, rather than committing themselves to the realm of myth.

Here is my feeble attempt at corollary:

If a car crashes into a telephone pole, does the pole pulverize into sawdust and collapse vertically? When watching a building burn, do all the walls collapse at once? When a wave hits the beach, does it arrive in a straight line?

Dr. Jones isn't the first scientist/engineer to come forward and state the obvious, ie low temperature fires cannot melt steel or pulverize concrete. Let's pray that he isn't the last.

jones and cold fusion 21.Nov.2005 13:56

xyzzy

">>Oh dear ... is he listing the cold-fusion hoax on his resume?

Yes, he listed his debunking of cold fusion."

actually he's both a researcher on that topic and a debunker of it. he does research on it himself, balieves it's possible, and he debunked pons and fleischman's particular claims to have produced it.

portland

xyzzy 22.Nov.2005 08:28

..

Nothing Happens.

Vermont Guardian covers Steven E. Jones 30.Nov.2005 17:48

repost

Physics prof backs WTC demolition theory

PROVO, UTAH In a paper posted online Nov. 7 and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Brigham Young University (BYU) physics professor Steven E. Jones claims that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings contradicts the official explanations and points to "pre-positioned explosives."

Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations."

Echoing the conclusions of others who have challenged the official explanation, Jones suggests that "explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes - which were actually a diversion tactic." As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones told the Deseret Morning News, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation."

Previous government investigations have downplayed the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Jones argues that the official explanation - fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse - can't be backed up by either testing or history.

Many of his arguments are the same as those presented by David Ray Griffin, who has published two books on the subject:

* The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically into their footprints;
* no steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to fire;
* Building 7,which wasn't hit by a plane, 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;
* horizontal puffs of smoke were observed proceeding up the side the buildings;
* steel supports were "partly evaporated," which would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, much hotter than the available fuel could have generated;
* multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers.

To review Jones's article, go to  http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/112005/1122.shtml