Rebuttal to “Debunking Steven Jones” Critics

In response to critics of my “Debunking Steven Jones” article, read the letter to the editor found here:

“Letter to the Editor Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his “Conspiracy Theory” relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01). In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones’ thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet’s fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones’ presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage, Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU”

This site states, “Professor Jones estimates the total amount of explosives required for the WTC here: Phone interview with demolition expert, Brent Blanchard, 10 Feb 2006…To bring down Southwark Towers, about 300 pounds of shaped charges (RDX) would be sufficient, he said. (Then for a WTC Tower, about 1000 pounds of explosives would be sufficient….)”

There are 4 problems with this claim:

  1. Thermite is an incendiary, NOT an explosive
  2. The Southwark Towers aren’t the WTC
  3. In his Aug 8, 2006 article, Brent Blanchard states that there was NO controlled demolition and that Jones admitted his thermite claim still had unanswered questions
  4. Jones claims 1000 pounds of explosives would be enough to bring down a WTC tower

Go here and you see a problem: In the 1993 WTC bombing, the terrorists used 1500 pounds of explosives to destroy 1 tower and were unsuccessful. Since 1000 pounds is LESS than 1500 pounds, then, LOGICALLY, if 1500 pounds of explosives wasn’t enough to destroy one WTC tower, neither is 1000 pounds.

Oh, and don’t forget this claim by Jones, found here: “Professor Jones tells us that a metal low in chromium, with “abundant manganese” rules out the possibility of it being structural steel,” but a check of the steel specs at the time the WTC was constructed says just the opposite (See here).

Hint: This means Steven Jones is lying- after all, a trained scientist should know better than to engage in such sloppy research.

Advertisements

Posted January 14, 2008 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

%d bloggers like this: