Technorati search

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Did Planes Collaspe the World Trade Center or Was There Another Cause?

A Physics professor from Brigham Young University is disputing the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center.

Desert News in Utah is reporting:

"'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."'

While the government does not support his theory he has performed a study and produced a 9,000-word article that he is offering for peer review. Is this just another conspiracy theory or is his speculation valid? Read the article and you decide.


At 12:10 PM, Anonymous Constant Reader said...

This is amazing! I am not a scientist of any description, but the points he made certainly make a lot of sense! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I would like some answers to his theories and if they are true, I would like to know who planted those explosives!

At 12:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the risk of having a disagreeable opinion (LOL), I feel that I have to post a comment on this one.
This is an awful story, and I wrote the author telling her so. As a simple matter of courtesy, she could have called one of the other people involved in the other reports, but we hear nothing from them. This kind of softball, grenade-throwing journalism is really beneath the Deseret. What's wrong with it? For instance:
“…Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway?...”
He assumes that since the towers fell symmetrically, then the terrorists wished for it to happen that way. Just because two things are next to each other, does not mean that one thing caused the other. This is a really bad argument, because however the towers fell (say they hit a certain building with a special antenna or something) you can make the case that it is extremely unlikely that it would occur this way. Then you can go on to ask the same questions.
A lot of reasoning like this is used to “prove” UFOs, Elvis, etc. You simply string together things that happen, imply one thing caused the other, and then draw whatever conclusion you wanted to reach all along.
A ten-minute phone call would have made this a much better-balanced story. Instead, it will become an internet "meme" -- one of those lost urban legends. Very sad.

At 12:48 PM, Blogger B O B said...

Thank you for your comments.

I personally tend to agree with anonymous. The History Channel did a show on the World Trade Center collapse, and offered detailed reasons why the planes did cause the collapse. They approached this with easy to follow animations, that explained exactly what happened.

With every theory though there is a rebuttal, and I do not regret posting this opposing view.

At 7:38 AM, Anonymous Prydwen said...

Thes building were not a house of cards. Something else had to have happened

At 7:43 AM, Blogger B O B said...

Thank you Prydwen. I have been enjoying your blog sometime now, and will be adding it to the blogs we read list.


Post a Comment

<< Home