911
See other 911 Articles
Title: 15 Years Later, Physics Journal Concludes: All 3 WTC Towers Collapsed Due to Controlled Demolition
Source:
Activist Post/Europhysics News
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09 ... due-controlled-demolition.html
Published: Sep 11, 2016
Author: Jay Syrmopoulos
Post Date: 2016-09-12 11:06:26 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 16916
Comments: 45
Over the past 15 years many highly respected academics and experts have come forward to challenge the official narrative on the collapse of the WTC towers forwarded by the U.S. government. The official government position holds that the collapse of all three towers was due to intense heat inside of the buildings. But a new forensic investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11, published in Europhysics News – a highly respected European physics magazine – claims that “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.” While many in the mainstream have attempted to label anyone questioning the official narrative as a “tin foil hat” conspiracy theorist, many highly respected experts have come forward to lampoon the idea that the buildings collapsed due to the intense heat and fires following two terrorist-directed plane crashes. “Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities,” the four physicists conclude in the damning report. The new study is the work of Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries and Ted Walter, the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers. The comprehensive study in Europhysics News directly challenges the official narrative and lends to a growing body of evidence that seriously questions the veracity of the government narrative. In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology remarked that the case was exceptionally bizarre. There were no other known cases of total structural collapses in high-rise buildings caused by fires and so it is deeply unusual that it should have happened three times in the space of one day, noted NIST. Official investigations have never been able to thoroughly and coherently explain how this might have happened and various teams tasked with examining the collapse have raised difficult questions about the veracity of the government’s story. Perhaps most damning of all, the experts claimed that after a thorough forensic analysis of video footage of the building’s collapse, it revealed signs of a controlled implosion. Additionally, Jones has co-authored a number of papers documenting evidence of unreacted nano-thermitic material in the WTC dust. The authors of the study note that the buildings fell with such speed and symmetry that they there was no other feasible explanation for the sudden collapse at free-fall speeds – directly refuting studies that attempted to debunk the idea that the building fell without resistance. These respected experts’ new forensic analysis only adds to the growing movement of people calling for a new and impartial investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. Revealing the scope and breadth of public disbelief in the official government narrative surrounding the events of 9/11, even presidential candidate Jill Stein has recently called for a new investigation. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 39.
#13. To: Deckard (#0)
There is the Europhysics News itself. http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf Page 1 of the issue of Europhysics News states: The article is on pp. 21-26. Page 21 is a basic cover page. Page 22 of the issue of Europhysics News leads off with: This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors. - - - - - - - - - - It is in no way a "comprehensive study." It is 5 print pages and a cover page. It may barely be a short story. - - - - - - - - - - The Steven Jones stuff has been recycled for ten years. It is not likely to change any minds now. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2016/08/jones-co-beclown-european-physics-news.html Jones & Company Beclown the Europhysics News - - - - - - - - - - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311065 "Truther scientists" get article published in EuroPhysics News magazine - - - - - - - - - - About former... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones Jones subsequently presented the WTC research in lectures at Idaho State University, Utah Valley State College, University of Colorado at Boulder and University of Denver, the Utah Academy of Science, Sonoma State University, University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas at Austin. On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave. The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and that perhaps Jones' research had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review. The review was to have been conducted at three levels: BYU administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the Physics Department. However, BYU discontinued the review. Some of Jones' colleagues also defended Jones' 9/11 work to varying degrees, and Project Censored lists his 9/11 research among the top mainstream media censored stories of 2007. Jones' placement on paid leave drew criticism from the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both organizations have long been critics of BYU's record on academic freedom. Jones "welcomed the review" because he hoped it would "encourage people to read his paper for themselves," however the school abandoned the review and Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007. And no, I do not accept the official theory.
...the head structural engineer of the buildings, John Skilling, was interviewed by the Seattle Times following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Skilling, who was concerned about a possible airplane attack, performed an analysis that proved the towers would withstand the impact of Boeing 707: “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed…The building structure would still be there…However, I’m not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage…. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.” To put it politely, Skilling believed the only thing that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled demolition, certainly not a fire alone – not even a “horrendous fire.”
#8, citing to the linked article: #16: To put it politely, NIST found the size of charge required to sever a single core column of WTC7, and found that the sound produced would have been loud enough to cause temporary hearing loss within half a mile. it would have been very, very audible, even at a distance. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11476392&postcount=20 [post link] http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311065 [Thread link] 6th September 2016, 07:56 AM Dave Rogers Does anyone who denies the controlled demolition explanation have any relevant information on how these demolition squibs could have been recorded during the collapses? There is no "controlled demolition explanation". There are just some uninformed people saying "controlled demolition," suggesting lots of mutually contradictory qualifications, and pretending that constitutes an explanation. One thing they like to do is mis-use the term "squibs", a word meaning small fireworks or special effect charges, to denote the substantial and extremely loud shaped charges used to demolish buildings, which sounds are clearly absent from the audio recordings of the collapses on 9/11. However, some of them manage to convince themselves otherwise despite the absence of evidence, and in at least one instance have edited the required sounds into an existing video. Apparently doctoring evidence like this is a vital part of the search for truth. NIST has been very coy about trying to answer this question. At one point they were referring people to a debunking site where the squibs were claimed to be some kind of reverse explosion or some such nonsense. They have never answered the question because there is no question to answer. Perhaps you'd like to post a link to this debunking site with appropriately added spaces here and there so it doesn't get filtered out. NIST did, of course, calculate the size of charge required to sever a single core column of WTC7, and found that the sound produced would have been loud enough to cause temporary hearing loss within half a mile, and one could assume by extrapolation that a similar size of charge would be needed for the Twin Towers. If there had actually been a coherent question, the absence of any instances of such hearing loss on 9/11 would have been a perfectly satisfactory answer. And of course, it's this critical deficiency in the evidence that caused one group of truthers, led by Steven Jones, to invent the idea that thermite can be used to sever compressive structural members and that this was done to demolish the Twin Towers. The best of their efforts has resulted in a set of data which, if skillfully misinterpreted, suggests that there may have been enough thermite in the entirety of the Twin Towers to raise the temperature of the steelwork by about two degrees (though in fact what they found was almost certainly paint). Your question is, of course, a classic example of the complex question fallacy, in its purest form, because it tries to sneak a point past the responder by embedding it in the question. The point is rejected because it is simply untrue. Much of this, by the way, was done to death here nearly ten years ago. When you've been here a while you'll be able to use the search function and find out more. Dave __________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11476423&postcount=21 6th September 2016, 08:10 AM GlennB The question is a simple one. Is there any alternative explanation to account for the demolition squibs, and if so, where can I find it? Do you understand the concept of the "loaded question"? If you meant to say 'The phenomenon referred to by some 9/11 conspiracists as "demolition squibs"' then you'd be asking an unbiased question. Or you could say 'The so-called squibs'. The building had a lot of dust and smoke in it, including on floors below the collapse zone. The onset of collapse increased internal air pressure and pushed some of that muck out of available holes, sometimes perhaps even creating holes in weakened areas. "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut Last edited by GlennB; 6th September 2016 at 08:12 AM. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11476519&postcount=26 6th September 2016, 08:56 AM LSSBB Yes. How about if call them the demolition explosions that some people deny are explosions at all, even when they see them with their own two eyes? This is moving in the direction towards an answer to my question. How do you know this stuff? Where did you learn it? Can you cite any reference? What decibel level of sound is produced in a controlled demolition? The absence of such sound rules out explosive dependant controlled demolition. Therefore, demolition squib did not exist according to all available evidence for the events of 9/11. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11476526&postcount=27 6th September 2016, 08:59 AM Dave Rogers If you’ve been at this for ten years, you should know this. Why feign ignorance? This is not a "very familiar usage" in general, it's a term made up by 9/11 truthers years ago and only common usage among that group. As far as I know, people who actually understand demolition don't use it, maybe because they have no need to distinguish between shaped charges to take out specific structural members (which they use exclusively) and large single charges to demolish an entire building (which they don't use at all). No, you've still asked it improperly; you've embedded the claim "demolition" in the question. Maybe you should try again, and keep trying until you learn how to ask an honest question. debunking911.com/overp.htm Now show me where NIST referred to this, as you claimed they did. Link appears dead but article is in Wayback Machine, captured 23 July 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160723113459/http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm This truther source includes a part, "The NAIL in the coffin of Jones' credibility." Good reading. Yes, that's exactly what's seen; an ejected plume of material whose intensity increases visibly over a measured period of time. This can only be explained by "the physical phenomenon we refer to as pressure," to quote someone recently trying to sound intelligent, created by the collapse of the building pressurizing its contents. The air in the top of the building is entrained with the collapsing debris and pressurizes the lower, as yet still standing, part of the building, and broken windows allow it to escape. This is why, of course, these ejecta plumes were not seen before the start of the collapse, i.e. not as the cause of the collapse, but after the start of the collapse, i.e. as a consequence of the collapse. It's also why they weren't accompanied by the deafening sound of demolition explosives; there were no demolition explosives. Dave __________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11487306&postcount=527 12th September, 07:36 PM LSSBB But first, we'll need a CD hypothesis to seriously consider that actually accounts for what we see and don't see, hear and don't hear. Rational people can quickly reject the ones that have been offered so far for lack of evidence, which should be abundant. And, why do you try to poison the well by falsely claiming that NIST "began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires?" I remember at the time, the structural damage was thought to be the most significant factor. The plausible hypothesis that the fire was worse than a normal office fire because it was fed by generator fuel was also examined and rejected. And regardless of how "predetermined" the conclusion was, no one (especially including yourself and cadre) has given any plausible cause other than fire. Again, instead of just pissing on NIST, what hypothesis do you wish us to consider that can't be immediately rejected by what we already know? NIST actually researched CD and dismissed it, correctly, due lack of audio loud enough to signify evidence of demolition-level explosives.
#40. To: nolu chan, strawman construction, Gatlin, Randge, misterwhite, Hank Rearden, Deckard (#39)
That's why conventional explosives weren't used for that task. Thermite melts rather than explodes. Hence the thermite residue found in the wreckage. DUH!
NIST rejected the blast scenario because they said no audio record of a blast with sufficient decibel level existed. So you're operating with an absence of evidence here. The quite nearly symmetrical collapse free fall of the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC 7) continues to confound explanation that excludes direct human agency. Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, asks: *** Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn’t get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity … started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse. For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse ….
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest But a new forensic investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11, published in Europhysics News – a highly respected European physics magazine....
Europhysics news is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences. The staff of EDP Sciences are involved in the production of the magazine and are not responsible for editorial content. Most contributors to Europhysics news are volunteers and their work is greatly appreciated by the Editor and the Editorial Advisory Board.
NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
The comprehensive study in Europhysics News
The new study is the work of Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University....
Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University....
On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by approximately 60 people. Jones claimed that a variety of evidence defies the mainstream collapse theory and favors controlled demolition, using thermite. The evidence Jones cited included the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and characteristics of dust jets. Later, Jones claimed he had identified grey/red flakes found in the dust as nanothermite traces. He has also claimed that the thermite reaction products (aluminium oxide and iron-rich microspheres) were also found in the dust. He called for further scientific investigation to test the controlled demolition theory and the release of all relevant data by the government. Shortly after the seminar, Jones placed a research paper entitled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on his page in the Physics department Web site, noting that BYU had no responsibility for the paper.
#16. To: nolu chan, Gatlin, Randge, misterwhite, Hank Rearden, hondo68 (#13)
#39. To: Deckard, Gatlin, Randge, misterwhite, Hank Rearden, hondo68 (#16)
the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.
To put it politely, Skilling believed the only thing that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled demolition, certainly not a fire alone – not even a “horrendous fire.”
#20
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
Originally Posted by steveupson
#21
Originally Posted by steveupson
__________________ #26
Originally Posted by steveupson
#27
Originally Posted by steveupson
In this (very familiar) usage, demolition squib refers to the small puffs of debris that are ejected by charges designed to take out specific structural members, as opposed to something meant to take down the entire building, such as a large car bomb like the one that was set off in the parking garage years ago by the blind sheik. Originally Posted by steveupson
Let me try once more to ask the question properly. How does one explain the demolition squibs as being caused by anything other than demolition charges? Originally Posted by steveupson
This cracks me up every time I read it. The reverse explosion theory : Originally Posted by steveupson
“But if we examine the anomaly closely, we see these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to spurt out and then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. Its strongest point is the moment the charge is set off.” #527
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger
I was also going to ask Tony if concrete is pulverized into tiny particles in a controlled demolition because of the explosives or because of gravity, but it looks like he doesn't want to talk about the article. That's a shame, since I had a couple of questions about the next paragraph, too:
Replies to Comment # 39. NIST found the size of charge required to sever a single core column of WTC7, and found that the sound produced would have been loud enough to cause temporary hearing loss within half a mile. it would have been very, very audible, even at a distance.
#41. To: nolu chan (#39)
due lack of audio loud enough to signify evidence of demolition-level explosives
How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 39.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]