Questioning what happened on 9/11


moghrabi
#1
Quote:

Questioning what happened on 9/11
Professor believes planes didn't cause all the damage around the WTC

TRANSCRIPT
MSNBC
Updated: 1:51 p.m. ET Nov. 15, 2005

Millions of people watched the horror of 9/11 right before their very eyes, live on television. Two planes, crashing into the World Trade Center. Less than a couple of hours later, both towers, of course, collapsing.

On Monday, Tucker Carlson welcomed Brigham Young University Professor Steven Jones to the 'Situation.' Jones, a professor of physics, believes that the hijackers may not have brought down the towers by themselves.

To read an excerpt of their conversation, continue to the text below. To watch the video, click on the "Launch" button to the right.

TUCKER CARLSON: Well, just sum up this-obviously your theory, just the one sentence that I just explained, in the intro, contradicts what we all think we know about how these towers collapsed. Quickly sum up your explanation for what's happened.

STEVEN JONES, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY: ... What I'm doing, Tucker, is presenting evidence, but it's a hypothesis to be tested. That's a big difference from a conclusion, and so I just wanted to clarify that. But to sum up that I have looked at the official reports by FEMA, and so on... regarding the collapse of-yes, of these buildings. ...

I'd like to look at the collapse of building seven in just a minute. It was not even hit by a jet. So we'll look at that one.

CARLSON: The two towers. The explanation has been that the fire inside was so intense that it weakened the structural steel and that each floor collapsed down upon the next in a pancake fashion, and they imploded in on themselves. That's essentially, I think, what people think.

JONES: Yes, that's basically it, yes. And so what I've done is to analyze these reports.

I would like to do a little experiment with you, Tucker, if I could. I sent out a video clip of the collapse of Building seven, because most people haven't actually seen that one, and that's the crux of the argument.

CARLSON: Can you sum up very quickly the argument for us? You believe there were explosives in the buildings planted by someone, detonated?

JONES: Well, yes.

CARLSON: Is that correct?

JONES: ... There are two hypotheses here. One is fire and damage caused all three buildings to collapse.

CARLSON: OK.

JONES: The other is that explosives in the buildings may have caused the collapse. And so, then we analyze and see which fits the data better, and I've done that in my 25-page paper.

CARLSON: I want to read you a quote from the 'Deseret Morning News,' a paper in Utah, from you. I'm quoting now.

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes, which are actually a diversion tactic. Muslims are probably not to blame for bringing down the World Trade Center buildings after all."

That's, I would think, pretty offensive to a lot of the people listening. Do you have any evidence for that?

JONES: Well, not-not to the Muslims, I might say.

CARLSON: Well, that's good.

JONES: I have a lot of e-mails.

CARLSON: I'm sure your writings greeted with just glee in Islamabad, and Peshawar and places like that. But for Americans.

JONES: Well, I haven't received notes from there, but just good people. I have Muslim friends. Let me read, for example, but I'm not going to let you off the hook. I really want to do this experiment with you.

CARLSON: We don't have a lot of time for experiments, Professor. But if you could just ... give us one thing to hold onto. How-you make these claims, or appear to make these claims ...

JONES: Tucker, sure, sure. Let's start with the collapse of Building seven. Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?

CARLSON: OK. I am not sure if we can, but that is the World Trade Center. It's smaller than the other two it was not hit by a plane.

JONES: Let's try.

CARLSON: Of course, it collapsed.

JONES: Right. It's 47 stories.

CARLSON: That's right.

JONES: Twenty-four steel columns in the center.

CARLSON: Right.

JONES: Trusses, asymmetrically supported. Now, I can't see what you're seeing. Are we rolling that?

CARLSON: No. We just see the building. And just so our viewers know, the explanation that I think is conventional is that there was a large tank of diesel fuel stored in the lower level of that, which caught fire, and the resulting fire collapsed the building.

JONES: Well, that's basically it, yes, but as we read in the FEMA report, it says here, and I put this in my paper, of course. "The best hypothesis, which is the only one they looked at, fire, has only a low probability of occurrence. Further investigation analyses are needed to resolve this issue, and I agree with that."

CARLSON: OK.

JONES: But they admit there's only a low probability, and if you look at the collapse, you see what I have studied is the fall time, the symmetry, the fact that it first dips in the middle. That's called the kink. Which is very characteristic, of course, of controlled demolition.

CARLSON: Professor, I am sorry that we are out of time ...

JONES: Whoa, one other thing I want to mention.

CARLSON: Ok. If you can hit it - hit it quickly.

JONES: OK. All right. Here we go. Molten metal in the basements of all three buildings.

CARLSON: Right.

JONES: And yet all scientists now reasonably agree that the fires were not sufficiently hot to melt the steel, so what is this molten metal? It's direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, which produces molten iron as an end product.

CARLSON: OK.

JONES: It's very short time, but people will read the paper, then I talk about the molten metal, the symmetry of the collapse, and the weaknesses and inadequacies of the fire hypothesis.

CARLSON: Professor, we are going to have to leave it to our viewers who are interested enough to follow up to do just that. We appreciate you coming on, even if I don't understand your theories, we appreciate you trying to explain them. Thanks.

Watch 'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' each weeknight at 11 p.m. ET
2005 MSNBC Interactive

2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/
 
no1important
#2
Anyone see this video?

It is an eye opener.
 
Reverend Blair
#3
Wow, bow tie boy sure didn't want that professor to show his theory. No time for an experiment, no clip of building 7. What's up with that. I've seen Carlson's show, and there's nothing important enough on it to cuy somebody off like that.
 
MMMike
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Anyone see this video?

It is an eye opener.

What a joke. I tuned out after the first few minutes, when the narrator tried to explain why the Twin Towers shouldn't have collapsed, or shouldn't have collapsed as they did. It's like listening to a dentist explain nuclear physics.
 
jimmoyer
#5
There's always people willing to believe.

There's people willing to believe anything about bad about Bush and the Dark American Forces.

And there's people always willing to believe anything about Bush that is good.

I can't see where either group is wiser than the other.

All I learn from these two groups is their gullibility in believing anything that fortifies their previously established prejudice.
 
jjw1965
#6
If you haven't read it maybe you should read the Operation Northwoods document and see what the joint chiefs of staff were willing to do back in 1962 and compare it to 9/11.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#7
jimmoyer

At least one thing sticks in my mind in that video. The penthouse on bldg. 7 collapsed before the rest of the building started to fall. I worked as a professional engineer for thirty odd years and I can't understand that. Could it be that the heavy equipment in the penthouse were dropped first so as not to pull the falling bldg off it's footprint? The rest of the bldg. collapsed as the lower floors disintegrated one at a time. Unfortunately, that video is all the evidence that is left.
 
jimmoyer
#8
#juan, with all due sincerity, I find that story you read and that video you saw very much like Momma Dee, an older black woman shown on C-SPAN vowing to the world she is convinced she heard explosions that meant somebody detonated the damn walls around New Orleans.

Now the pragmatist in me, NOT THE IDEOLOGIST, wonders if this woman knows what it takes to set up a demolition of a damn wall that will succeed shortly after a hurricane and in an environment where the police feared to tread and the emergency ambulances dared not go.

People are watching way too much TV, especially non-technical people who saw McGuyver in the 80s perform magic with duct tape and a pen cap.

The other night I saw experts screw up a demolition of a building I think in Indiana. The dynamite got the first two stories and then it stopped and then the whole 40 story building did a tilt and stood still.

Experts !!!

Whoah unto all you ideologists and political partisans who have no mechanical and technical skill as you imagine the magic of evil.

It ain't as easy as you conspiracy lovers magically believe.

Even evil takes intelligence and hard work and even evil fails to accomplish the mission OFTEN.

I gotta give MMMikke some credit with his post:

"What a joke. I tuned out after the first few minutes, when the narrator tried to explain why the Twin Towers shouldn't have collapsed, or shouldn't have collapsed as they did.

It's like listening to a dentist explain nuclear physics."

-------------------------end of quote--------------------

Learn a little more what it takes to accomplish the work of hell.

Do you recall how al Qaeda botched its first attempt on the Twin Towers, The World Trade Center in 1994 ?

It set a bomb in the basement garage and it caused considerable foundation damage but failed in its mission to bring down the World Trade Center. We saw blackened faces and smoke go through the whole building.

Even conspiracy is hard work.

Not magic.

And the odds of success are minimal.

You only have to succeed one time out of a 100 to get people to believe in magic.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#9
jimmoyer

With respect, the video did raise a few questions, but as I said, the only evidence is that video. BTW, there is no doubt that winds of a hundred and fifty plus, and tidal forces knocked down the damn dams in New Orleans.
 
jimmoyer
#10
#Juan, it's good for you to be searching for any possibility but at some point I hope your instinct for the practical and the pragmatic overrides any prejudice for you to believe someone set up demolition devices in the Twin Towers.

The real bomb most likely after all is said and done, is the white hot power of jet fuel flowing down the foundations and melting the steel --- and I think this bedazzled all the EXPERTS who are the world's worst worryers that the architecture succeeded in its designed to fall down vertically instead of leaning like a domino knocking down a whole street of skyscrapers.

Even experts know that the acid test will show up some mistake.

I don't know too many people who have great technical skills that are as equally passionate about political ideology. Sure there are exceptions. But they're exceptions to the rule.

Ever wonder about that?
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#11
jimmoyer

Like most people in North america, I watched the aircraft hit the twin towers on 9/11 at least a hundred and forty seven times. I always wondered about bldg 7 and the Pentagon. In the case of the Pentagon, there should have been dozens of videos of the aircraft but there was none. Like I said, there is no longer any evidence. None of the explanations regarding bldg 7, or the Pentagon, make any sense to me, but they don't have to.
 
jimmoyer
#12
Why not a lot of videos of the Pentagon crash?

Think a moment. The reason won't be political or evil, but rather one pragmatic fact: There's a lot of people walking the streets in New York --- ALL THE TIME, and there is not an equal number of humanity walking around the Pentagon, nor are there a lot of tourists near enough the Pentagon walking around with a video camera like in New York City.

By the way, the news always shows a demolition of a tall story building. I've seen enough failures by the experts to wonder how much goes into blowing things up successfully.

By the way anomalies of any kind always inspire the wondrous magic of conspiracy, don't they?

It's natural for the non-technical types to think of it.

Remember all those movies exploring the idea of the perfect crime?

Remember Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment?

It ain't easy being sleazy.

Even the terrorists who search for a young mind to turn know what a tremendous sustained effort it takes to find these people, because even those who agree with the insurgents still aren't going to give up their own lives.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#13
Quote:

By the way, the news always shows a demolition of a tall story building. I've seen enough failures by the experts to wonder how much goes into blowing things up successfully.

By the way anomalies of any kind always inspire the wondrous magic of conspiracy, don't they?

I've been involved in quite a number of projects where existing buildings had to come down to make way for the new. The people doing this demolition work have often told me that they only get one chance, so they better do it right, because nobody wants to go back into a bldg that is half blown down. Contractors that do this work don't scrimp if they want to stay in business.

There were all sorts of anomalies on 9/11, as there were in 1963 when JFK was killed. Both these events have inspired enough, well deserved conspiracy theories to fill a library. People will be discussing what "really happened" twenty five years from now.
 
jjw1965
#14
Pull It!

It seems to me it would take more than a few hours notice to pull a building and do it with such accuracy!
 
jjw1965
#15
Fallen Buildings


 
jjw1965
#16
Seven World Trade Center Conspiracy
 
jimmoyer
#17
There's always people willing to believe.

There's people willing to believe anything about bad about Bush and the Dark American Forces.

And there's people always willing to believe anything about Bush that is good.

I can't see where either group is wiser than the other.

All I learn from these two groups is their gullibility in believing anything that fortifies their previously established prejudice.

In addition, one new thought at how this thread has evolved:

Have you noticed that none of us are willing to relax from our beliefs, none of our arguments have influenced the other to take a second look, not one person has allowed the other in this thread (including me) the value of their point.

Perhaps all we seek is an echo of ourself, an affirmation of our belief, certainly not a real two-way conversation.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#18
jjw1965

Those pictures appear to be disasters, in that the sequential charges didn't achieve the desired results. The whole idea is to cut the building in pieces with explosive charges as it is coming down. Interesting pictures though.
 
jjw1965
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer


Have you noticed that none of us are willing to relax from our beliefs, none of our arguments have influenced the other to take a second look, not one person has allowed the other in this thread (including me) the value of their point.

Perhaps all we seek is an echo of ourself, an affirmation of our belief, certainly not a real two-way conversation.

All I have noticed is that people, once their mind is made up, refuse to even look at any other view point, much less the truth.

I have studied this for 2 years now and even now I am willing to go back on everything I believe, as long as anyone can show me their proof that there wasn't something else besides the planes that brought the world trade centers down.
 
jimmoyer
#20
Any non-technical person can have an opinion.

And wonder all sorts of magical things without embarrassment and without meeting the burden of unassailable proof.
 
jjw1965
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

jjw1965

Those pictures appear to be disasters, in that the sequential charges didn't achieve the desired results. The whole idea is to cut the building in pieces with explosive charges as it is coming down. Interesting pictures though.

Your right on the mark juan, they are disasters, I'm just trying to say that the tops of the twin towers should have fell in big chunks instead of powdered concrete like the did.
 
jjw1965
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Any non-technical person can have an opinion.

And wonder all sorts of magical things without embarrassment and without meeting the burden of unassailable proof.

I think you should change your name to the Riddler, What are you insinuating, That I'm A Dumbass?
 
jimmoyer
#23
I have studied this for 2 years now and even now I am willing to go back on everything I believe, as long as anyone can show me their proof that there wasn't something else besides the planes that brought the world trade centers down.
--------------------------------------jjw1965---------------

I'm not sure what quality of 2 years study that was, nor is the burden of proof upon others to disprove whatever you believe, but rather the burden of proof is very much upon you to look for anything that might dismantle what you believe. That's the Scientific Method, with all of its rigor that defies prejudice of every kind. It is not for others to do that for you.

You certainly have so jaundiced a view of Bush Amerika that you gravitate to any idea that supports such bias.

Even the idea of someone setting up demolition explosions to implode the tower and also making sure two airplanes fly into it beget so many questions as to the logic of someone setting up demolition in such a way not to have those towers lean like dominos destroying a whole avenue of skyscrapers. And then the logic twists even further to wonder of the beauty of the architural expertise of designing those structures to fall in upon themselves.

Even any belief in the conspiracy of demolition of those buildings defy your prejudice simply by the way they fell in upon themselves.
 
jjw1965
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

You certainly have so jaundiced a view of Bush Amerika that you gravitate to any idea that supports such bias.

First of all lets get something straight, Bush Has nothing to do with my opinion on what happened to the towers, My dumbass voted for him in 2000 ,Big mistake on my part! It was what I observed after the Pentagon got hit that started my belief.

In my opinion Bush is to stupid to come up with such a scheme, he is just a puppet taking orders from someone else.

And I don't stop with Bush, I look at the history of this country and what it is capable of doing.
 
jjw1965
#25
Police Found Suspected Bombs In WTC On 9/11
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

There's always people willing to believe.

...and just as damnable are those that refuse to believe, because they can't stomach what it would mean if it were true...

...I think that if there is some nefarious conspiracy afoot, that they conspirators would breathe easy knowing that the insanity of the plot would make it unbelievable to most pragmatists...
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#27
The most vaunted article that attempts to debunk the most common 9/11 conspiracies was the Popular Mechanics article entitled:

9/11: Debunking The Myths

It's really quite an amazing coincidence that the senior research editor for that piece was Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of the Director of Homeland Security...

Then of course the conspiracy theorists set out to debunk the debunkers...have they accomplished that?

Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11

If one should take the time to take a closer look at the official government story of the events of 9/11, you find that they defy logic far too often to be factual...if you don't want to see that, then that's your business...but you should not deride those that would like to know the truth, if there is any...
 
jjw1965
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

If one should take the time to take a closer look at the official government story of the events of 9/11, you find that they defy logic far too often to be factual...if you don't want to see that, then that's your business...but you should not deride those that would like to know the truth, if there is any...

 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#29
Quote:

Have you noticed that none of us are willing to relax from our beliefs, none of our arguments have influenced the other to take a second look, not one person has allowed the other in this thread (including me) the value of their point.

That is not entirely true. I thought your arguments were reasonable and I admitted that the bit of video tape was not enough evidence to prove anything. I also said that the events in 1963 when JFK was killed also resulted in tons of conspiracy theories as well. Anyway, these things would be better topics to discuss if there weren't so many lives cut short.
 
no1important
#30
Personally with reguards to Tower 7 there are a lot more questions reguarding its collapse than answers.
 

Similar Threads

5