9/11 'Evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis'

It often suprises me how the genuinly absurd claims about 9/11 such as Saddam and Iraq were working with Osama and Al-qaeda on that tragic day are still widely believed even though there is zero credible evidence to support such failings in logic


But when a genuine non partisan scientist comes forward and says "hey i think you should look at this" the ripping apart and the full scale attack starts in an instant .This is one such credible claim .

By Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy. Brigham Young University. Provo, UT 84604

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government. Read the report in full

Watch a video Courtesy of Daily Dissent Here

watch the towers colapse Video 1 - Video 2

Now this is a credited scientist who has brought forward a non partisan hypothesis but i am sure that people will try to discredit this is by using the old political phrase book

Words such as "moonbat theory" and "conspiracy nut" will fly around i am sure , but remember , this is a hypothesis , not a fact and it seems that his physics are sound , so how do you proove this wrong ?

Well not by shouting "moonbat" at people but by looking at his paper and finding the scientific flaw in his work

I am not claiming (neither is the scientist ) that this is exactly how it happened , but when someone with this kind of background and knowledge makes this kind of claim then you would be a fool not to listen .So rather then just dismiss it as false , why not find out why it is false , we would all like to know if this has any factual errors in its calculations .

I post this with the hope that others will look at it and either push it up the agenda or find the correct "scientific" reason for its fallacy

More information about Mr Jones and his qualification to make this hyothesis can be found here

my sources ICH and Daily Dissent