HartmannWatchWatch

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://tinyurl.com/7drxn

WTC collapses due to controlled
demolition (article link)

Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU (AS IN) BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
I believe WTC collapses to be due to controlled
demolition are:

1. My own analysis of the "pancaking" floors model
(the FEMA/NIST model) combined with Conservation of
Momentum considerations gives a much longer time for
the fall (over 10 seconds) than that which was
actually observed for WTC-7 (about 6.3 seconds, just
over the free-fall time of 6.0 seconds). I find no
evidence in their reports that government researchers
(FEMA, NIST, 9-11 Commission) included Conservation of
Momentum in their analyses.

2. The fact that WTC-7 fell down symmetrically, onto
its own footprint very neatly, even though fires were
just observed on one side of the building. A
symmetrical collapse, as observed, requires the
simultaneous "pulling" of support beams. By my count,
there were 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns in
WTC-7. Heat transport considerations for steel beams
heated by fire suggest that failure of even a few
columns at the same time is very small. Adding in the
Second Law of Thermodynamics ("law of increasing
entropy") leads to the conclusion that the likelihood
of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to
fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it
does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns
-- is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of
WTC-7 was observed. (If you still haven't gone to the
links above to see the actual collapse for yourself,
please go there now.)

Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even
deal with the collapse of WTC-7. This is a striking
omission of highly relevant data.

3.Squibs (horizontal puffs of smoke and debris) are
observed emerging from WTC-7, in regular sequence,
just as the building starts to collapse. (SEE:
http://tinyurl.com/7drxn ) Yet the floors have not
moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify
from the videos, so air-expulsion due to collapsing
floors is excluded. I have personally examined many
building demolitions based on on-line videos, and the
presence of such squibs firing in rapid sequence as
observed is prima facie evidence for the use of
pre-positioned explosives inside the building.

4. The pulverization of concrete to powder and the
horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of
yards, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC
towers, requires much more energy than is available
from gravitational potential energy alone. Explosives
will give the observed features. Other scientists have
provided quantitative analysis of the observed
pulverizations, and I can provide references if you
wish. Here we are appealing to the violation of
Conservation of Energy inherent in the "official"
pancaking-floors theory-- a horrendous violation,
forbidden by principles of Physics. (What is going on
for the FEMA/NIST researchers to make such striking
errors/omissions?)

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking"
theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately
12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the
WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are
supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a
concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete
floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed
during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own
experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself,
is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off
the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx.
100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however,
can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along
with some large chunks-- as observed in the
destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.

6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say
molten steel!) in the basements of all three
buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use
of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction:
iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron.
Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting
of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a
concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the
government reports admit that the fires were
insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for
heating and warping then failure of these beams) --
but these reports do not mention the observed molten
metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have
a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST
and 9-11 Commission reports.


7. I understand that models of the steel-frame WTC
buildings at Underwriters Laboratories subjected to
intense fires did NOT collapse. And no steel-frame
buildings before or after 9/11/2001 have collapsed due
to fire. Thus, the "official" fire-pancaking model
fails the scientific test of REPRODUCIBILITY.
(Earthquake- caused collapses have occured, but there
were no major earthquakes in NYC on that day. And
buildings which have collapsed due to earthquakes
collapse asymmetrically, as expected -- not like the
nearly straight-down collapse of WTC 7 to a small
rubble pile!)


8. Explosions -- multiple loud explosions in rapid
sequence -- were heard and reported by numerous
observers in (and near) the WTC buildings, consistent
with explosive demolition. Some of the firemen who
reported explosions barely escaped with their lives.

Essentially none of these science-based considerations
is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this
subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M.
Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.)
(Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM
analysis does not fit the observed facts.)

I have performed other analyses regarding the WTC
collapses on 9-11-01 which may be of interest --let me
know if you're interested. The matter is highly
interesting to me as a physicist -- and as a citizen
of the United States. I conclude that the evidence for
pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1
and 2) is truly compelling.

Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU


This article was posted on 9.16.05