Did Bombs Topple the WTC??

Remove all ads!

This article appeared last Thurday in Utah's Deseret News. It represents the findings of a qualified physicist:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

This theory has been voiced before, primarily by David Ray Griffin, Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology at the Claremont School of Theology, in his book "The 9/11 Commission Report Omissions and Distortions". Dr. Jones status as a professional in these matters gives his opinion great weight.

 

Several other specialists have already advanced this theory, some of them mere days after the incident, and with very strong evidence to support their theory. Naturally they didn't receive wide attention, mainly since the news at the time were crushing any opposition to the "official" version. The same has been done with the Pentagon airplane by the way - there's lots of conspiracy theories, but some stuff is actually very accurate fact-wise, and points more towards some kind of missile than an airplane. Unfortunately it's been years, and I no longer have any links or articles on hand.

 

It represents an opinion of a physicist. I'm not sure what you mean by 'qualified' physicist -- he has a degree, he's a professor, in what way is he 'qualified' in this area? He is not a civil engineer nor does he have extensive experience in explosives. His specialties are:

Metal-catalyzed fusion, Archeometry (early horses in Americas), Solar energy

The opinions of a physicist and theologist are not enough to sway many away from the findings of structural engineers who collaborated with explosive experts in the original findings. Everything he lists can be easily explaned in context with the impact of the jets and subsequent fires.

 

Some of the points he cites have mind-bogglingly obvious answers. Case in point:

And how many steel-framed buildings have been struck by airliners?

 

So according to this guy, the planes flying into the WTC buildings was a diversionary tactic? That seems like quite the reach. Furthermore, if you could get large amounts of explosives inside the WTC undetected, and further presuming these explosives were brought in prior to the attack itself, wouldn't it obviate the need to have planes fly into the buildings?

 

This reminds me of another "plane" that was supposed to damage the Pentagon:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
Any comments?

 

T2Bruno: Your points are well-taken. I'm not sure what "metal catalyzed fuzsion" is, but at least it sounds relevant. The conspiracy theorists do make a big point of the rubble being shipped off immediately to Korea to be smelted before it could be properly analyzed.

AMaster: In 1945, an AAF bomber flew into the Empire State Building. It made a big hole, but that was all.

Aldeth: In this scenario, the planes hit the buildings to conceal the use of explosives. It is not irrelevent to add that security at the WTC was provided by a company that was controlled by the President's brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, who was CEO at the time. They were also in charge of security at Dulles airport, where Flight 77 was hijacked. Don't you love conspiracy theories?

[ November 14, 2005, 23:49: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

A bomber plane is not a Boeing 737.

I recently watched a "documentary" and saw these squibs. If there was an explosion, why only a smoke cloud so tiny? Each of them just blows out one window.

It is much more logical that something was thrown out of the windows because of the pressure from above.

 

Metal Catalyzed Fusion: "We are currently conducting research on deuteron and proton beams impinging on various metals."

Steven Jones was the first researcher to declare cold fusion a possibility (although it was two others who turned it into a circus). He really has very little credibility in his own field, so he venture into other areas to show his ignorance.

Just a little flaw in your comparison:

The B-25 is 33,510 pounds fully loaded (21,120 pounds empty) and has a max speed of 230 mph. The plane had enough fuel to land in New Jersey (plus a hour or so).

The Boeing 767 is 450,000 pounds fully loaded. It carries over 180,000 pounds of fuel (and both were nearly full at impact). Cruising speed is 540 mph (it is estimated the planes were going well over 600 mph when they struck).

The 767 had a minimum of 75 times the kinetic energy of the B-25 (perhaps even 150 times the energy). And probably 100 times the fuel.

With a 450,000 pound missile delivering the equivalent of a 90 ton bomb (perhaps 50 ton when comparing explosive properties of jet fuel versus TNT) there was no need for additional explosives. Very few structures in the world would survive. The Pentagon was lucky the plane hit in a steep dive instead of landing pattern.

 

I believe the point was whether a skyscraper had ever been struck by an airplane. This doesn't mean that your information lacks relevance.

 

I used the word airliner, not airplane, but yes, it was indeed my point. Turns out I really can learn something new every day--and promptly forget it the next, more often than not.

 

Total crap. I saw both towers collapse and I know one of the structural engineers who did the post-mortem.
His arguments don't make any sense, leading me to believe that this particular physicist is a screaming moron. First, taking out structure at the ground level would have made it far more likely to fall asymetrically than taking it out towards the top of the towers: elementary moment diagrams. Second, while taking out a lower floor would certainly increase the force the rest of the building falls, you still would have to deal with the increase in falling time this guy supposes, along with the fact the top portion of the tower would likely remain intact longer than the bottom portions of the tower, which obviously wasn't the case in the footage. Third, a controlled demolition would have required charges throughout the building; do you seriously believe some group was able to covertly wire every other floor? Fourthly, it wasn't the impact that took out the structure, it was the fire; why do you think steel structural framing is *always* required to be covered by fireproofing, to at least a two hour fire rating (one of the reasons it didn't last two hours was that the temperature of the blaze was way above fire rating temperatures).

Fifthly, I freaking watched the thing happen, and can assure you that the footage wasn't doctored from what the world saw by some shadowy government/entertainment complex. I can also assure you that I am not a CIA/Bush/Haliburton plant. The floors above the impact pancaked down the floors below. And of course some debris would have shot off the lower floors during collapse; think of the shock waves that must have gone up and down the building structure.

Of course, moron physics boy wants to think that every piece of debris was caused by some covert charge, while I want to wonder how this guy ever passed his general exam. He wants a piece of the metal for testing? Kinda like Fred Leuchter "proved" that the Nazis never used cyanide by scraping the walls of Aushwitz? The Intelligent Design people should call this guy up; I hear they have a need for scientists like him...

 

I, also, saw the destruction of the World Trade center live on TV. I watched the planes (2) fly into the buildings. I watched the buildings collapse.

By now it should be known that I'm not a Bush supporter.

This 'scientist' justs wants to make a name for himself imo. I could give him one but wouldn't be polite.

 

What plane? Have you seen those pictures in ling I have posted above? Show me that plane. And why it made so little damage???

 

Undertaker, do you know how huge the Pentagon is? Yoou didn't see part of the plane sticking out of the WTC, did you?

You realize your "theory" insults all those who lost their lives on the jet that crashed into the Pentagon.

Terrorists tried a bomb on the WTC in 1993. It didn't work.

I was there that day, on a plane that never took off from LaGuardia Airport. Please let the dead Rest in Peace and let these stupid conspiracy theories go. Whoever is coming up with this stuff should really find a better focus for their skills.

 

http://www.physics911.ca/Main_Page

Theres an awlful lot more of those people out there than just that nut including civil engineers, colonels, and of course Galloway
But its always interesting to see alternative arguments (even if there a lot of nonsense)
However the parrallels between a controlled demolition and their collpase is amusing.

 

The whole talking about the WTC stems from the pentagon-thing, right? Because it is unlogical that the WTC was demolished by terrorists when the pentagon was hit by a cruise missile. So the WTC must have been destroyed by the US government also. Right?

As long as there is no proof for these thesises, you can talk as long as you will: your opinion is entirly based on belief.

 

@ Undertaker -- I saw them and I ignored them because they are absolutely ridiculous. Try here:

Hunt the Boeing! Smoke and Mirrors No Substitute for Proof

And more here:

The "Pod People" And The Plane

[ November 15, 2005, 15:50: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

A Boeing 757 Struck Pentagon
Debunking The 9/11 Myths

I suggest reading these articles before continuing any argument.

 

I ment no offence to anyone. There are arguments both for and against theory I have posted. And it seems that a lot of people support my view.
But I will not take part in this discussion any longer as no good will come of this.