http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.php?module=pagemaster
<http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_us...
GE_id=59> &PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=59
Steven Jones - Professor of Physics at Brigham Young Claims the World Trade Center
brought down by Controlled Demolitions
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings,"
BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.
Recently, Steven Jones, Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University, published an
article named: "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?," The Hidden History of
9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy" Full Paper here: Steven Jones
<http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html> Article
In the article Steven Jones does an impeccable job of showing physics-wise why the
building couldn't have simply collapsed, as well as why pre-planted explosives had to
have been part of the equation as to why the Towers fell. It is indeed an excellent
article, and because of it, and his new public stand on 911, some 60 other Faculty
members of Brigham Young have joined his ranks and openly admitted they believe along
the same lines.
This is a huge break-through in terms of 911 truth getting and going public, and more
than likely will force the debate in other colleges, and surely down the road, more will
follow his lead. And for this, Steven Jones deserves a huge standing ovation and thanks!
While Mr. Jones is a Professor of Physics, one surely doesn't need to be one themselves
in order to see that the World Trade Center was brought down by pre-planted bombs in a
Controlled Demolition. All one has to do is slow down the footage and watch it for
themselves, and they will witness for themselves, many, many bombs going off ahead of
the falling mass. There is no need for experts in this to help us 'make up our own
minds...' Sometimes all it takes is a single picture. The picture below shows, in plain
sight, two such explosive charges going off ahead of the falling mass, one on the right
side of the building, and another on the front face of the building in the same area.
While Steven Jones article is only days old, he has already made an appearance on MSNBC
and did a brilliant job answering questions from Tucker Carlson in what ended up being a
6 minute interview on MSNBC. To watch the video of the interview, go here: Steven
<http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=9d06140d-6e7e-4c83-ba21-481991123d7...> Jones
Interview
Throughout Mr. Jones article, he fails to mention either the Pentagon which allegedly
was struck by flight 77, (A 757) or the Shanksville, Pennsylvania 'crash-site' which is
where flight 93, a 757 was alleged to have crashed. Yet he does take time to address
'other notions' and then goes on and names Dave vonKleists, 911: In Plane Site video,
specifically the part where Dave shows the evidence for the extra pieceof equipment on
Flight 175's under-belly, as a very weak argument which 'distracts from the central
issues.' See his quote from his article below.
At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the near vacuum of
official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis. These notions must be
subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means endorse all such ideas. For example, the
video "In Plane Site" promotes the theory that a "pod" holds a missile under the wing of
the 757 which hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Careful inspection of the
undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the explanation that the so-called "pod" was
merely a reflection from the bulged undercarriage (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). I
find that the "pod theory" is very weak and distracts from central issues.
The ironic thing here is that those who claim and believe the buildings were brought
down in a controlled demolition, are actually helping to demonstrate why Military Drones
were used, and had to be used on 9/11.
Mr. Young demonstrates that it was neither the damage to the structures from impact, nor
the subsequent effects of the jet fuel burning from the airliners, that caused the
buildings to fall.
Now, if the planes didn't cause the structures to fall, and the Towers were laden with
pre-planted explosives, then it can be safely assumed that commercial aircraft weren't
needed as part of the plan to topple the Towers. Having established as fact that the
buildings were pre-wired with explosives, this would mean that someone simply could have
pressed the detonator and taken the buildings down at any given moment, whether or not
planes were even used.
Both structures started to collapse around the same area as where the planes impacted
the Towers. On the North Tower, this collapse started in the floors between 93 and 98,
and on the South Tower, 2nd impact, it started it's collapse between 78 and 84, exactly
where the planes impacted the Towers.
Lets look at a few more facts before drawing conclusions. There were two flights on 9/11
which actually didn't even exist that day. They were for all intents and purposes
'phantom flights.' Both Flight 11, and Flight 77 were never listed in the BTS (Bureau of
Traffic Saftey) database as having been flights on 9/11, although they were regular
scheduled flights the day before 9/11 as well as the day after.
The screenshot below shows Flight 11 (1st Strike, North Tower) as NEVER having existed
as a regular flight on 9/11/2001, it NEVER departed Bostons Logan International airport,
according the BTS database.
While the screenshot below shows Flight 11 as having been a flight the day before on
September 10th.
And this one shows and demonstrates that Flight 77 (3rd Strike, Pentagon) NEVER existed
as a flight on September 11, 2001 as well.
This helps to establish the absence of at least 2 of the 4 flights alleged to have taken
part in the 9/11 attacks. Those that are left, as real flights are, flight 175 (The
South Tower) and Flight 93 (Shanksville, PA).
Now let's take a closer look at flight 175, and the footage taken from the news networks
themselves. The pictures below show an undeniable extra piece of extra equipment, or
'pod' on the under-carriage of flight 175, alleged to have hit the South Tower (2nd
impact). The pod is between the engines and off-centered on the right side of the
fuselage. Steven Jones says this 'theory' is weak. I contend it is neither a theory, nor
a weak argument, as there is unmistakably an extra piece of equipment on the
under-carriage of alleged flight 175. It's in Plain Sight.
Picture below, Evan Fairbanks, ABC Footage
Front Cover of Newsday Magazine, September 12th, 2001
Front Cover of the New York Times, September 12th, 2001
ABC, Evan Fairbanks, no captions
Picture below taken from The New Yorker Magazine, September 24th, 2001
All the images below are CNN shots
All of the pictures above, show an un-missable extra pieceof equipment is on the
under-carriage of flight 175. When Boeing was asked about this nefarious equipment/bulge
on the bottom of Flight 175, they didn't say 'what bulge?' But rather said that they
refused to answer on the grounds of 'National Security' and instead deffered the
question to the 9/11 Ommission Commission. People that cannot see this are either in
denial, lying, or have terrible eyesight. And the fact it was shown on the front cover
of the New York Times, as well as Newsday magazine on September 12th, 2001 shows the
pictures are genuine and not photoshopped.
Now Steven Jones says the pod was merely a reflection from the bulged under-carriage of
a 757. He said this in the same section where he says all such notions (other than his)
should be "subjected to careful scrutiny..." I totally agree with this, and believe only
the best proofs of 9/11 being an inside job should be shown. Yet I must wonder what he
means by 'careful scrutiny' as he wasn't even able to correctly identify the type of
aircraft that hit the 2nd Tower. It was alleged to have been a Boeing 767-200. He
incorrectly claims this was a 757. The wing-root of a 757 is indeed larger than that of
a 767-200, yet even with a 757 this wouldn't explain the giant obvious off-centered
bulge on what was alleged to be flight 175. His analysis on the pod is flawed from the
beginning, not only in obvious errors, but no careful scrutiny in the least. His biggest
mistake however is in using Benjamin Chertoff of Popular Mechanics as one of his
'sources' for pod bashing. Benjamin Chertoff is the Editor in Chief of Popular Mechanics
magazine, as well as the cousin of the Director of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff.
No conflict of interest there, eh? It should be noted that while trying to 'debunk' the
pod, that Popular Mechanics failed to show even a single picture of it, obviously
fearing the obvious, that if they show pictures of it, none would believe their
disingenuous claims of 'no pod.' The Popular Mechanics article can be found here: PM
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y> Article
Whatever the case is, it is quite obvious that Steven Jones didn't really even research
the claims of the pod in the least, as much of his data was totally incorrect and full
of holes. This might cause some to question his credibility, as if he is this sloppy
with regards to the pod, which oddly enough he is debunking, than what other errors did
he make along the way? I would also suggest he not use Benjamin Chertoff as a source, as
he is the cousin of the Department of Homeland Security, a one Michael Chertoff, as it
also takes away from his otherwise very credible and well researched views on the
collapse of the World Trade Center.
Now lets summarize:
The fact that the World Trade Center was brought down by pre-planted explosives actually
lends credence to the idea that Military Drones were used on both Towers. Why? First of
all because the planes had nothing to do with each of the Towers collapses. The
collapses were due to pre-planted charges throughout the WTC. The planes were used as a
smoke screen to give a reason why the buildings would collapse. i.e. The World Trade
Center suffered such fire damage and heat damage to supporting steel columns, that it
weakened the metal enough to cause a total collapse of the entire structure. At least
that's the official government claim according to FEMA and NIST.
The fact that Flight 11 NEVER existed as a Flight on 9/11 shows some sort of Military
Drone was used. Why? Because Flight 11 never existed as a flight on 9/11, yet a plane,
which the government claims was flight 11, struck the North Tower (1st Impact). Now this
plane had to have come from somewhere, as it couldn't have come from nowhere, and it
certainly never took off from Boston's Logan International Airport, as it isn't in the
BTS database as even being a flight that day.
The fact that alleged Flight 175 was a military Drone is easy enough for the masses to
see, as, all they have to do is to look through the above pictures and observe the pod
on the under-carriage of alleged 175. There exists no such piece of equipment on any
standard 767-200's. It has been added, and does not belong. And here I stop with the
pod, for the sake of brevity, but there is so much more wrong with what was alleged to
have been flight 175, it is undeniably NOT flight 175. Here is a brief list of
everything else wrong with alleged flight 175:
1. The Pod (Extra Equipment on Fuselage of 175)
2. It shoots out a Missile, Rocket or some other kind of Incendiary Device just prior to
impact, caught by 5 different news media cameras.
3. It has what appears to be more Military Ordnance tucked between the planes Starboard
engine and pylon.
4. It is spraying out Jet Fuel from two different locations on its fuselage, forward
fuselage, and rear fuselage. This is an impossibility for a 767-200.
5. Just prior to impact, what appears to be a laser targeting light paints the side of
the South Tower and appears to help guide the plane into the World Trade Center, South
Tower, 2nd Impact.
6. What appears to be a refueling boom hole appears on the planes rear under-carriage,
where such devices are placed on other Refueling Tankers.
7. Eyewitnesses claim there were NO passenger windows on this aircraft.
Please reference these things in this story here, if you desire to see all the major
feats of flight 175 prior to impact. These show and prove beyond any reasonable doubt
that this isn't, and couldn't have been flight 175, which was alleged to have taken off
from Boston's Logan International airport. Pictures
<http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/index.php?module=announce&ANN_us...
16> & Video Here:
In a footnote, it is quite apparent that considering the facts, Military Drones had to
be used. First of all, the people alleged to have flown these flights were inexperienced
pilots, of whom it was said by their flight instructor, that they weren't even good
enough to fly a Cessna or even drive or park a car. Yet they hit right on the mark where
they were supposed to hit at the WTC. The reasoning here is that since the Towers
started to collapse where the planes struck them, it is reasonable to assume that this
is where they planned on starting the controlled demolition of the WTC, and needed the
planes to act as the smokescreen or reason on why the Towers fell. Thus the planes HAD
to hit, right on Mark, or else it might endanger the completion of the mission, the
destruction of the WTC. An inexperienced and unrated pilot could NEVER have come close
to such precision.
And then these questions arise:
1. If the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition, with explosives, then
why fly airplanes into them at all? Why not aim those aircraft at other targets to
inflict maximum pain, fear and terror?
2. If the buildings were pre-wired with explosives, then why detonate them so early in
the morning, when the building are basically empty?
*** A. Why not wait a few hours till 11AM when occupancy is at it's height, and then
detonate the explosives, when some 50,000 people are in the WTC complex?
You see, once one goes over all of this material, and weighs it, one will easily arrive
at the conclusion that Military Drones were indeed used on 9/11. Especially upon
examination and "careful scrutiny" of the medias own footage of what is alleged to have
been flight 175 at the South Tower. There is no other reasonable conclusion.
Created on 11/16/2005 07:01 PM by Phil_Jayhan
Updated on 11/16/2005 11:59 PM by Phil_Jayhan
*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only *** CAVEAT LECTOR
***
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.
NOTE: Some links may require cut and paste into your Internet Browser.
Please check http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/topics?gvc=2 more real
news posts and support the truth! (sorry but don't have time to email all posts)
http://blogs.albawaba.com/alexanderjames/
http://blogs.albawaba.com/Alexanderjames/page/links
<http://www.lulu.com/content/165077> http://www.lulu.com/content/165077;
http://www.lulu.com/browse/book_view.php?fCID=165077
<http://www.lulu.com/browse/book_view.php?fCID=165077&fBuyItem=5> &fBuyItem=5
http://bb.domaindlx.com/alexjames999
*** Revealing the hidden Truth For Educational & Further Research Purposes only. ***
Welcome to Real News Edited excerpts, non-partisan, pro-truth-honesty-peace, and
anti-war-lies-crime. The purpose is to expose corruptions, frauds, deceptions, lies,
criminal plans, cover-ups and free-speech silencing by powerful people in governments,
foundations, corporations and media, which are done using the name of democracy, human
rights, false interpretations of religions, cults, occults, patriotism, economy,
business, media, elections, justice, charity, etc., and are used to trick the public
into hatred & wars and out of their lives, money and freedoms, while the propaganda we
are subjected to makes us believe that we have evolved to where such things cannot
happen [remember slavery, apartheid.]. Please share what you learn with others who do
not have access to the internet. This is only a tip of the iceberg. Stop the hatred that
is used to promote the dehumanization of the victims of predatory aggressions;spread the
truth;free your mind from being a Zioncon occupied territory of the neo-feudal lords by
rejecting the mainstream news propaganda. Caution: real news may induce a kind of
schizophrenia because it provides a true vision of reality which is so different from
the one we are presented by the mass media spins. Latest real infonews available at
alternate news. ***** Check whatreallyhappened . com & other alternative news sites for
latest news flashes. In Truth We Trust! The opinions expressed herein contain positions
and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of the recipient, disseminator or others
mentioned in the information. These are offered as a means to stimulate dialogue and
discussion.
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency (NSA) may
have read emails without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any
judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse, nor protection.......... IF
anyone other than the addressee of this e-mail is reading it, you are in violation of
the 1st & 4th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Patriot Act 5 & H.R.
1955 Disclaimer Notice: This post & all my past & future posts represent parody & satire
& are all intended for entertainment and amusement only.
To be removed from the list, please reply with the subject line "REMOVE"
To receive email at another address, please reply with subject line "CHANGE"
To receive email, please reply with "WEEKLY"
