Home > MSNBC Questioning what happened on 9/11
Professor believes planes didn’t cause all the damage around the WTC
Millions of people watched the horror of 9/11 right before their very eyes, live on television. Two planes, crashing into the World Trade Center. Less than a couple of hours later, both towers, of course, collapsing.
On Monday, Tucker Carlson welcomed Brigham Young University Professor Steven Jones to the ’Situation.’ Jones, a professor of physics, believes that the hijackers may not have brought down the towers by themselves.
To read an excerpt of their conversation, continue to the text below. To watch the video, click on the "Launch" button to the right.
TUCKER CARLSON: Well, just sum up this-obviously your theory, just the one sentence that I just explained, in the intro, contradicts what we all think we know about how these towers collapsed. Quickly sum up your explanation for what’s happened.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
STEVEN JONES, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY: ... What I’m doing, Tucker, is presenting evidence, but it’s a hypothesis to be tested. That’s a big difference from a conclusion, and so I just wanted to clarify that. But to sum up that I have looked at the official reports by FEMA, and so on... regarding the collapse of-yes, of these buildings. ...
I’d like to look at the collapse of building seven in just a minute. It was not even hit by a jet. So we’ll look at that one.
CARLSON: The two towers. The explanation has been that the fire inside was so intense that it weakened the structural steel and that each floor collapsed down upon the next in a pancake fashion, and they imploded in on themselves. That’s essentially, I think, what people think.
JONES: Yes, that’s basically it, yes. And so what I’ve done is to analyze these reports.
I would like to do a little experiment with you, Tucker, if I could. I sent out a video clip of the collapse of Building seven, because most people haven’t actually seen that one, and that’s the crux of the argument.
CARLSON: Can you sum up very quickly the argument for us? You believe there were explosives in the buildings planted by someone, detonated?
JONES: Well, yes.
CARLSON: Is that correct?
JONES: ... There are two hypotheses here. One is fire and damage caused all three buildings to collapse.
CARLSON: OK.
JONES: The other is that explosives in the buildings may have caused the collapse. And so, then we analyze and see which fits the data better, and I’ve done that in my 25-page paper.
CARLSON: I want to read you a quote from the ’Deseret Morning News,’ a paper in Utah, from you. I’m quoting now.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes, which are actually a diversion tactic. Muslims are probably not to blame for bringing down the World Trade Center buildings after all."
That’s, I would think, pretty offensive to a lot of the people listening. Do you have any evidence for that?
JONES: Well, not-not to the Muslims, I might say.
CARLSON: Well, that’s good.
JONES: I have a lot of e-mails.
CARLSON: I’m sure your writings greeted with just glee in Islamabad, and Peshawar and places like that. But for Americans.
JONES: Well, I haven’t received notes from there, but just good people. I have Muslim friends. Let me read, for example, but I’m not going to let you off the hook. I really want to do this experiment with you.
CARLSON: We don’t have a lot of time for experiments, Professor. But if you could just ... give us one thing to hold onto. How-you make these claims, or appear to make these claims ...
JONES: Tucker, sure, sure. Let’s start with the collapse of Building seven. Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?
CARLSON: OK. I am not sure if we can, but that is the World Trade Center. It’s smaller than the other two it was not hit by a plane.
JONES: Let’s try.
CARLSON: Of course, it collapsed.
JONES: Right. It’s 47 stories.
CARLSON: That’s right.
JONES: Twenty-four steel columns in the center.
CARLSON: Right.
JONES: Trusses, asymmetrically supported. Now, I can’t see what you’re seeing. Are we rolling that?
CARLSON: No. We just see the building. And just so our viewers know, the explanation that I think is conventional is that there was a large tank of diesel fuel stored in the lower level of that, which caught fire, and the resulting fire collapsed the building.
JONES: Well, that’s basically it, yes, but as we read in the FEMA report, it says here, and I put this in my paper, of course. "The best hypothesis, which is the only one they looked at, fire, has only a low probability of occurrence. Further investigation analyses are needed to resolve this issue, and I agree with that."
CARLSON: OK.
JONES: But they admit there’s only a low probability, and if you look at the collapse, you see what I have studied is the fall time, the symmetry, the fact that it first dips in the middle. That’s called the kink. Which is very characteristic, of course, of controlled demolition.
CARLSON: Professor, I am sorry that we are out of time ...
JONES: Whoa, one other thing I want to mention.
CARLSON: Ok. If you can hit it - hit it quickly.
JONES: OK. All right. Here we go. Molten metal in the basements of all three buildings.
CARLSON: Right.
JONES: And yet all scientists now reasonably agree that the fires were not sufficiently hot to melt the steel, so what is this molten metal? It’s direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, which produces molten iron as an end product.
CARLSON: OK.
JONES: It’s very short time, but people will read the paper, then I talk about the molten metal, the symmetry of the collapse, and the weaknesses and inadequacies of the fire hypothesis.
CARLSON: Professor, we are going to have to leave it to our viewers who are interested enough to follow up to do just that. We appreciate you coming on, even if I don’t understand your theories, we appreciate you trying to explain them. Thanks.
Watch ’The Situation with Tucker Carlson’ each weeknight at 11 p.m. ET
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/
Forum posts
16 November 2005, 10:14
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, no explanation is possible." Of course, this can be taken either way. Until we have incontrovertible evidence, belief in either direction is all that we have. Personally, I believe that something is being hidden by the US government; the only question is, how deep was their involvement, and how much did they arrange?
16 November 2005, 13:53
I want to see the good professor on "The Daily Show". Jon would actually understand his theories. Carlson is just an ass. I’m amazed he had this man on!
It is good to finally see someone in the scientific community voice what many Americans have suspected, but hasn’t been truly investigated, due to the stone-walling of this administration.
16 November 2005, 23:21
One of the most suspicious things is the speed with which the remains of the buildings were disposed of. The NYPD was not allowed to investigate the way they would do any arson, nor was the FBI. Apparently, everyone bowed to some nebulous federal authority, and consequently evidence was disposed of before it could be examined.
16 November 2005, 23:49
If you read the NIST report carefully you’ll find that they try to explain why the towers toppled 90 and 180 degrees away from the impact. Naturally they should have toppled towards the same side. Their explanation is weak and unsubstantiated: fires must have spreaded to the other side... A better explanation follows. But first this. NIST’s computer simulations show that a collapse might have been initiated by the impact and fires. NIST does not say anything about what follows after the initiation of collapse. They just say: and than a total collapse follows. However it is impossible that three buildings collaps perfectly symmetrical with minimal damage to their surroundings. But that is exactly the point. If you allow planes to fly into the twin towers you have to be concerned about toppling and widespread destruction in the financial district. You don’t want to bring Wall Street to a standstill for any period of time. So you need demolishers to control the damage. The demolishers were set up in Building 7 monitoring the impacts and fires. As the NIST report says some buckling on the side of impact started minutes before collapse. The demolishers noticing this had to avoid toppling and started explosions on the opposite side and actually the buildings toppled away from the side of impact.
Oh and another thought: the demolishers had quite some equipment set up in Building 7. They needed to remove any traces. So they pulled Building 7.
Now if you think this is crazy first see what you think about the PNAC. Just look it up.
17 November 2005, 02:34
Prominent Conservative Leader: Government in Hands of Psychopaths
May stage terror attacks
Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson | November 15 2005
Former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Dr. Paul Craig Roberts expressed his dire warning that the US government has fallen into the hands of psychopaths and that the Neo-Cons in the Bush administration may be set to stage another terror attack in the US as part of a black operation to demolish growing dissent and coerce the public to rally behind the government once again.
During an interview with the Alex Jones Show, Roberts cited a Capitol Hill Blue article concerning a leaked memo circulating between top Republican leaders.
The memo outlines potential strategies to bring their agenda back online, including the capture of Osama bin Laden, a drastic turnaround in the economy or a resolution of the war in Iraq.
The most alarming option includes a terrorist attack that would validate the President’s war on terror and "restore his image as leader of he American people."
This document adds to the mountainous pile of smoking gun evidence of government complicity in staged terror attacks and other false flag operations. It has now been declassified, as we already knew, that the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. It was staged to get us into Vietnam. Operation Northwoods was the official US government plan to carry out 9/11 style attacks against the American people and blame it on foreign enemies as a pretext for war.
Publicly published PNAC documents before 9/11 had saliva stains all over them as Dick Cheney and others talked about helpful Pearl Harbor attacks.
Paul Craig Roberts
Roberts went further than he has ever gone before in stating that the Neo-Cons were worse than Hitler and Stalin because they publicly embrace torture and pre-emptive war, something that past despots at least tried to hide.
As the Senate bill to block torture is blocked by Bush and Cheney, the promotion of torture in official circles continues.
US National Security advisor Stephen Hadley refused to rule out torture in the case of an imminent attack, telling CNN’s Late Edition that there are cases where the Bush administration’s empty pledge not to torture would apply.
George Bush’ repeated statements of "we do not torture" would certainly ring hollow to the thousands of disappeared individuals, now subject to God knows what in secret ex-Soviet gulag camps all over the Eastern Bloc.
And also to those subject to torture mastermind Donald Rumsfeld’s Copper Green program, which manifested itself with arbitrary rape and fatal beatings at Camp X-ray and Abu Ghraib.
Paul Craig Roberts said that the US government is in the hands of dangerous psychopaths who are a disgrace to the human race and who should be arrested as war criminals and turned over the the Hague.
Roberts outlined his conviction that the torture program was not set up to gain any kind of real information from accused detainees because torture is renowned for extracting useless and false information. The real reason for the torture is to make the terrorists implicate themselves and thus create the perception of a real terrorist threat.
This is exactly the process in Uzbekistan, where the government was caught torturing innocent people into confession and then using the confessions as evidence that the government needed to crack down on terror.
Roberts said that the CIA was aware that the vast majority of detainees are not terrorists, proven by the fact that Pakistani gangsters admitted to rounding up innocent people in street sweeps and selling them to the US government as terrorists for anything up to $25,000. These people are now at Guantanamo Bay.
Roberts pointed out that only nine so-called terrorists have been brought to trial and none have been convicted. Why do individuals have to be held for four years without trial if there is proof that they can be convicted with? Army interrogators have gone public with their frustrations that these people are obviously not terrorists but they are still ordered to keep them. Images of mass ranks of terrorists are pure lies on the part of the insane Neo-Cons.
People who refuse to torture and blow the whistle on it, like General Janis Karpinsky and Rick Baccus are ejected and replaced with cadres of torture teams willing to do the dirty work. Roberts said that these torture teams would be turned loose on US citizens before long.
Roberts said that America is the most hated nation on earth by design and that the military is completely out of control. The barbarism in Iraq practiced by the US occupational government will live in infamy when it is historically judged by hindsight.
Paul Craig Roberts is part of a crescendo of credible voices stepping forward to blow the whistle on the megalomaniacs in the White House as the insanity of the US government reaches unprecedented levels.
18 November 2005, 04:58
Clearly if MSNBC would have wanted to show the clip of WTC7 being imploded they could have. It is impossible IMO for any reasonable astute person to view it and not IMMEDIATELY tell it has been brought down by some type of demolition. Why they were forthright enough to bring Prof. Jones yet fear to show the clip is curious, unless they were simply out for name recogition in association with being one of the ’honest’ news sources.
Though I have become so sceptical that any of the major networks could ever expose any of the 9-11 involvement of the Crime family, perhaps MSNBC has made the decision they have to or face the inevitable decline of those leaving the so called ’news’ mainstream.
It occurs to me I recall actually seeing the clip of Silverstein admitting they were going to pull WTC7 but I haven’t seen the network coming out and informing the public ,rather they seem to have buried the footage. This whole charade is idiocy. Clearly the building was brought down by demolition. To keep up this foolishness only make the state-run corporate media look more and more and more dishonest each day. And as a result more of us are turning them off. And as a result less and less and less advertising gets seen. And as a result less purchases are made. And as a result the economy further weakens..........