WTC: the controlled demolition hypothesis

This is a recording of Steven E. Jones, physicist, talking about 9/11 to an audience at Brigham Young University.

I started out watching this video thinking I would learn more about Steven's investigation into the suspicious collapse of World Trade Center building 7. This was a 47-story building that was not hit by any plane, was 100 meters away from the nearest tower, endured only minor structural damage, and yet collapsed, ostensibly from "fire", some 7 hours after the two towers, in a way suspiciously akin to what a professional demolition would look like.

Steven's lecture talks about that, convincingly, but then he goes on to talk about more, also convincingly.

Some highlights - partly from Steve's talk, with some additional quotes from this crackpot's page:
  • G. W. Bush has a brother, Marvin, who was director of a company, then named Securacom, that used to be in charge of security at WTC. (Zack)
  • The owner/leaseowner of WTC took out an insurance policy protecting against terrorist attacks some 2 months before they happened. They got over $4 billion, while tax money was used for the cleanup. (Steven)
  • WTC had lots of asbestos in it and there was supposedly a serious problem about how to get all that asbestos out. (Steven)
  • The weekend before 9/11, the buildings were closed for "an extremely unusual 36-hour power down. According to Scott Forbes [...] only on floors 47 to 50, and men in maintenance suits were seen entering the building that weekend, ostensibly to do a network 'recabling'. [...] 5 days before 9/11, bomb-sniffing dogs were removed from the site." (Zack)
There's more. Do watch the video.

You can read more about Steven E. Jones here. Excerpt:
Jones has been interviewed by mainstream news sources and has made a number of public appearances. While Jones has urged caution in drawing conclusions,[32] his public comments have suggested a considerable degree of certainty about both the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and the culpability of rogue agents working within the U.S. government.[33] In one interview, he asserted that the attacks were "an 'inside job', puppeteered by the neoconservatives in the White House to justify the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries, inflate military spending, and expand Israel."[34] His name is often mentioned in reporting about 9/11 conspiracy theories.[35]
More links:
  • Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice - Jones's group: "This is the new home for a restructured scholars group that welcomes scholars and all persons interested in exposing the truths of the 9/11/01 attack. Care is being taken to present the strongest, most credible research available, some of which is published on our sister site, the Journal of 9/11 Studies. [...] Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is committed to effecting change through non-violence."
  • PilotsFor911Truth.org: "We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts -- since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today -- and the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts."
  • WTC7.net: "Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper."
  • Wikipedia has - as of this time - an interesting and detailed article - it does recognize the undisputed holiness of the official view, but it still describes the demolition hypothesis in fair detail.
Finally, take a look also at Zack Smith's page. This looks like a crackpot's site - it has credible stuff comingled with distortions and unfounded hypotheses. I get the impression that Zack is a bit like a spider's web in that he catches and publishes everything. His conclusions are overreaching, but you can find stuff here that you probably can't find in a single place anywhere else.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

When monospace fonts aren't: The Unicode character width nightmare

"Unreachable" beauty standards

Is the internet ready for DMARC with p=reject?