Saturday, November 12, 2005
Brigham Young University physics professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
My hubby usually reads the news in the mornings, and he'll often leave something up on the screen for me to read. This morning it was an article linked by WND, and at first sight of it, skeptically groaning within, I thought "Oh brother, not another 'junk science' conspiracy theory please..."
But I went ahead and began reading it since 1) Chris had already left for the morning, so wouldn't be able to knowingly gloat... and 2) I was a bit intrigued that this article was concerning the "9,000 word paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, written by Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones,"... "who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, and is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation 'guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations'."
I found it quite interesting, and its implications are very, well... troubling, to say the least. Maybe my hubby's not so nuts afterall!
LOL! He's always theorized that it was an inside job, and that the story of the planes crashing being the cause was/is a bunch of media hype. Yep, but he's always been the suspicious cynic though...whose immediate inclination is to question any and every thing...
Anyways, we're always razzing eachother over alot of geopolitical stuff (which honestly I do also find fascinating), him reading on all of these geopolitical forums and such, getting himself all riled up *snicker* and me getting to hear all these theories and rants, trying hard not to be overwhelmed and willing myself not to roll my eyes as I dismiss alot of it as so much paranoia and side-tracking mumbo-jumbo (it's easier that way you know...to just not think about it, and to wishfully suppose that yeah, the govt. has my best interests in mind...they're the good guys...
right?!
*knowing sighs*)
Anyways, enough rambling from me. You may click here to read the article; Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WT yourself, if you haven't already, and if you'd like.
And if you do, I'm interested to know whatcha think?
But I went ahead and began reading it since 1) Chris had already left for the morning, so wouldn't be able to knowingly gloat... and 2) I was a bit intrigued that this article was concerning the "9,000 word paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, written by Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones,"... "who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, and is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation 'guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations'."
I found it quite interesting, and its implications are very, well... troubling, to say the least. Maybe my hubby's not so nuts afterall!
LOL! He's always theorized that it was an inside job, and that the story of the planes crashing being the cause was/is a bunch of media hype. Yep, but he's always been the suspicious cynic though...whose immediate inclination is to question any and every thing...Anyways, we're always razzing eachother over alot of geopolitical stuff (which honestly I do also find fascinating), him reading on all of these geopolitical forums and such, getting himself all riled up *snicker* and me getting to hear all these theories and rants, trying hard not to be overwhelmed and willing myself not to roll my eyes as I dismiss alot of it as so much paranoia and side-tracking mumbo-jumbo (it's easier that way you know...to just not think about it, and to wishfully suppose that yeah, the govt. has my best interests in mind...they're the good guys...
right?!*knowing sighs*)Anyways, enough rambling from me. You may click here to read the article; Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WT yourself, if you haven't already, and if you'd like.
And if you do, I'm interested to know whatcha think?
Comments:
<< Home
Ok, I read the article and sometimes your suspicious mind goes overboard. My husband used to be into conspiricy theories. But I don't know about this one. We are not talking about any ordinary fire. This was airplanes filled with jet fuel. They were flying to the West coast so they were filled to the max I am sure. I know that jet fuel is extremely hot. I don't know exactly how hot it burns, but I had the opportunity to go to a controled jet fuel burn quite some years ago with my husband before we were married. He was with a voluntary fire department. I don't know how far exactly I was from the fire, or how much was burned, but I was more that 300 ft. away and the heat was intense. So that is my opinion.
# posted by 
: 12:47 PM
: 12:47 PM
Hi Jennifer,
Thanks so much for stopping by here, and for leaving your opinion. I know, I've always been skeptical of all the floating "conspiracy theories" myself. But, they are NOT all of the same calibre, and I'm learning that just because some are TOTALLY nonsensical, w e shouldn't just write off all others as such, and that their really are conspiracies out there, bent on keeping the general public *at ease and in their place*...dumbed down. But, with that said, I would like to point out the following two statements from the article by Jones which I found esp. interesting, one of which DOES address the fact that diesel fuel doesn't even begin to come close to burning hot enough to accomplish what took place at the WTC.
• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.
• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, 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. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
********************
Anyways, I simply find it very interesting to consider this alternative viewpoint along with its ominous ramifications, since I'm finding that it certainly seems to contain valid points to consider, which were strangely ignored by all U.S. govt.-funded reports...And THAT does make me go hmmmmm... all the more.
My hubby has also read ALOT more on this particular incident, and has shared some more significant tidbits as well, but I'll spare you the conspiritorial details for now.;-)
Thanks so much for stopping by here, and for leaving your opinion. I know, I've always been skeptical of all the floating "conspiracy theories" myself. But, they are NOT all of the same calibre, and I'm learning that just because some are TOTALLY nonsensical, w e shouldn't just write off all others as such, and that their really are conspiracies out there, bent on keeping the general public *at ease and in their place*...dumbed down. But, with that said, I would like to point out the following two statements from the article by Jones which I found esp. interesting, one of which DOES address the fact that diesel fuel doesn't even begin to come close to burning hot enough to accomplish what took place at the WTC.
• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.
• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, 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. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
********************
Anyways, I simply find it very interesting to consider this alternative viewpoint along with its ominous ramifications, since I'm finding that it certainly seems to contain valid points to consider, which were strangely ignored by all U.S. govt.-funded reports...And THAT does make me go hmmmmm... all the more.
My hubby has also read ALOT more on this particular incident, and has shared some more significant tidbits as well, but I'll spare you the conspiritorial details for now.;-)
Who's to say what really happened. Yeah, I know that there are conspiracies out there to ease the mind of the public. Well, if something really did happen, it would be nice for it to be exposed. You just never know. But who did it and why? if that is what this professor thinks.
# posted by : 8:24 PM
: 8:24 PM
Now, I'm curious - what motive do you and your husband think that the government could possibly have for covering this up?
Would it have been possible for the search & rescue workers to have seen evidence of the bombs used?
Is it possible that the government simply accepted that planes were the cause and never actually investigated anything else?
Would it have been possible for the search & rescue workers to have seen evidence of the bombs used?
Is it possible that the government simply accepted that planes were the cause and never actually investigated anything else?
I guess that would be the million $ question then, wouldn't it? And honestly, I haven't a clue!
I do know that my hubby thinks it was an "inside job", as do many others he's read and discussed this with. Honestly, I really don't know what I think. LOL! That's what he thinks, that it was our own govt., working towards the whole (anti)Patriot Act conspiritorial mess, and more of the same, ie; slowly working at taking away our rights, a test job of sorts and further set-up for removing our individual sovereignty, rights to bear arms, creating a *felt need* among the general public for "more federal security" (and all the invasive tactics that entails), etc.
But I jokingly mentioned to Chris that he'd be proud of me for posting this one (as I'm often giving him a hard time for all of his "out there" geopolitical views and musings, and I also asked him what motivation he thinks there would be for our govt. to do such a thing, if they did (which I know sounds ludicrous to some, but I think truth is too often stranger than fiction, and have learned some troubling things over the years)...anyways, he said "They did it so that they could go to war with Iraq, don't you know baby?" So, that's his theory, fwiw... ;-)
Thanks to you both for your comments, and please do make yourself at home. I loved hearing from you.;-)
I do know that my hubby thinks it was an "inside job", as do many others he's read and discussed this with. Honestly, I really don't know what I think. LOL! That's what he thinks, that it was our own govt., working towards the whole (anti)Patriot Act conspiritorial mess, and more of the same, ie; slowly working at taking away our rights, a test job of sorts and further set-up for removing our individual sovereignty, rights to bear arms, creating a *felt need* among the general public for "more federal security" (and all the invasive tactics that entails), etc.
But I jokingly mentioned to Chris that he'd be proud of me for posting this one (as I'm often giving him a hard time for all of his "out there" geopolitical views and musings, and I also asked him what motivation he thinks there would be for our govt. to do such a thing, if they did (which I know sounds ludicrous to some, but I think truth is too often stranger than fiction, and have learned some troubling things over the years)...anyways, he said "They did it so that they could go to war with Iraq, don't you know baby?" So, that's his theory, fwiw... ;-)
Thanks to you both for your comments, and please do make yourself at home. I loved hearing from you.;-)
I think it is fairly unlikely that our government plotted to blow up the twin towers just to have an excuse to invade Iraq and take away more American freedoms. Our government is very large and very clumsy. I do not think they could have pulled it off so smoothly.
I think it is far more likely that certain opportunistic officials have had plans in place, which they waited to implement until an opportune moment arrived. They essentially let Bin Laden do their dirty work for them. The most they might have done was to make sure certain warnings were down-played and that inaction and incompetency prevailed.
I think it is far more likely that certain opportunistic officials have had plans in place, which they waited to implement until an opportune moment arrived. They essentially let Bin Laden do their dirty work for them. The most they might have done was to make sure certain warnings were down-played and that inaction and incompetency prevailed.
Frankly, that seems much more plausible to me as well, and is basicly the stance I've taken in my discussions with Chris. I think you've said it better than I have though, so thank you (I read it to him-hehehehee- we like to bounce these ideas around).;-)
Now, I know I've said this before, though not necessarily on your blog - when the world looks like it is full of vast conspiracies, I remind myself that it is still ruled by the Prince of the Air and that he and his cohorts have been around for all of human history, manipulating and deceiving mankind. That doesn't mean the people that have been manipulated knew anything about what their actions were for on a larger scale.
So if it seems orchestrated, it probably is - just not necessarily by human involvement.
So if it seems orchestrated, it probably is - just not necessarily by human involvement.
That is so true. And what is amazing, and where I find REST is in the fact that all of the scheming of Satan and his minions over the eons, are contained within the sovereignty of our LORD, the Alpha & Omega... for His Glory and for His purposes alone.
But yeah, men are dust... and merely tools, either for the Glorious Kingdom of Heaven or for the corrupt legion of darkness... As Bob Dylan says, "You gotta serve somebody...It may be the devil or it may be the Lord, but ya gotta se-erve somebody..."
But yeah, men are dust... and merely tools, either for the Glorious Kingdom of Heaven or for the corrupt legion of darkness... As Bob Dylan says, "You gotta serve somebody...It may be the devil or it may be the Lord, but ya gotta se-erve somebody..."
Well, I just ran across this and thought to post the link here, for anyone interested in reading more "evidence" that our govt. "'did' 9/11, or at least let it happen on purpose"
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/911-cover-up.html
George Washington's blog here seems to have lots of info. compiled on the subject.
Post a Comment
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/911-cover-up.html
George Washington's blog here seems to have lots of info. compiled on the subject.
<< Home
|
|
