by Elaine Jarvik
The physics of 9/11 - including how fast and symmetrically one of the World
Trade Center buildings fell - prove that official explanations of the
collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all
three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones. . . .
Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling
for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by
politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three
buildings and set off after the two plane crashes - which were actually a
diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for
bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said,
"I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and
NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the
physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers
and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation -
that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse -
can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says. . . .
VIDEO: Rick Sanchez, "Suspected Bombs In WTC,"
MSNBC, September 11, 2001
J. McMichael, "Muslims Suspend Laws of
Physics!," 911review.com, November 25, 2001
Building 7's Vertical Collapse," 911 Research
David Ray Griffin, "9/11 and the Mainstream
Press," The Wisdom Fund, August 1, 2005
[Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to
my arguments: The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the
building to collapse ["official theory"] remain unknown at this time.
Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential
energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low
probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are
needed to resolve this issue. . . .
None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the
explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken,
the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on
9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up. . . .
I have presented ample evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis,
which is testable and falsifiable and yet has not been seriously considered
in any of the studies funded by the US government.--Steven E. Jones, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings
Collapse?," Brigham Young University, November 2005]]
"Questioning what happened on
9/11: Professor believes planes didn't cause all the damage around the
WTC," MSNBC: The Situation with Tucker Carlson, November 16, 2005
[Last fall, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones made
headlines when he charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of
"pre-positioned explosives." Now, along with a group that calls itself
"Scholars for 9/11 Truth," he's
upping the ante. . . .
Headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished
McKnight professor of philosophy, the group is made up of 50 academicians
They include Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. "Star Wars"
space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the
Department of Labor in President George W. Bush's first term.--Elaine
professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11," Deseret
Morning News, January 28, 2006]
Tad Walch, "BYU
places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave," Deseret Morning News,
September 8, 2006
VIDEO: Kevin Ryan, "A New
Standard for Deception by Kevin Ryan," google.com, 2006