|PRISON PLANET.com Copyright © 2002-2005 Alex Jones All rights reserved.|
Transcript: Alex Jones Interviews Dr. Steven E. Jones
Collapse: Professor Steven E. Jones
Alex Jones: Here’s the headline on the Desert Morning News - it’s up on Infowars.com - we’ve also put up there his physics paper he wrote up on this. His hypothesis - he’s going according to scientific fact - he’s just saying; Ok, well, the evidence, the science, the math, shows this; that it had to be explosives, but I’m open for debate. He’s not even saying that’s what happened. He’s scientifically saying prove your hypothesis that two planes did this, and, I can only commend him for doing this. He joins German defense ministers and technology ministers; he joins members of the British parliament, senior members of Blair’s cabinet; he joins Paul Craig Roberts and Mr. Reynolds from other major federal departments, chief economists; he joins squadrons of people and other professors who have come out and just said ‘this is impossible.’ Of course we have Larry Silverstein saying he blew it up so I don’t know what more you need - there’s an admission. But we’re honored to be joined by Steven E. Jones - I guess no relation to the Oklahoma city bombing lawyer and no relation to Alex Jones, but Steven E. Jones - keeping up with the Jones’ - Professor Jones, Dr. Jones, good to have you on with us.
Dr. Steven E. Jones: Thank you very much, Alex. It’s a pleasure to be able to talk about these things.
AJ: Well, it’s a pleasure to be able to talk to you sir.
SJ: Well thank you very much, I was pleased that the Desert Morning News, which is one of our major papers here in Utah, was willing to run this and put it on the front page of their paper yesterday, and of couse they did a decent job. I was pleased to get that out in the media.
AJ: There’s a snowball effect of prominent people, very respected with impeccable records, that are now just saying; look, the emporer’s not wearing any clothes.
SJ: Yep, that’s a good way to put it. Yeah, and as you mentioned, and I appreciate your fairness in that, my paper which is available - and I hope people will actually read it; that’s their homework for today, (laughs) I like to tell my students - in my paper I present evidence for explosive demolishion, particularly of building seven, World Trade Center seven, but also the towers - I mean building seven was not even hit by a jet, so this common knee jerk reaction we hear: “Oh, it was the jet fuel, and jets and so on,” but there were no jets that hit building seven and yet it came down symmetrically, so the evidence is strong there. At the same time I’m presenting it as an hypothesis that needs to be investigated further.
AJ: Well I agree with you sir. I have your research paper here in front of me and I’d like to go through it in the next forty minutes or so after we go to this quick break. For laymen out there to understand just it’s mathematical facts - steel doesn’t melt at this point, other examples; hundreds of buildings that have burned for hours or days with hundred foot white flames shooting out, and nothing collapses, but little bitty black fires, very low temperature magically make a building implode with total precision - and just kind of chronicle all this, and then I want to first off ask you when we come back from break why you’re deciding to go public, when you began to question things, when you began to research, professor. Let me give people the website; it’s physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html. The easiest thing to do folks is to go to Infowars.com. We have links to the website itself and we’re mirroring his paper. We’ve posted it, we’ve grabbed it. We have a link to wtc7.net as well - just premier research - they focus specifically in on that, and also we have a link to the Desert Morning News: ‘The professor thinks bombs not planes toppled WTC 7.’ We’ll be right back after this quick break. Stay with us, we’re talking to professor Dr. Steve E. Jones.
AJ: It’s becoming a common occurance. Prominent members of academia, government, from the higest levels, the clergy, from all walks of life, all areas of the political spectrum pulling forward and just saying; look, hah, somethings rotten in the state of Denmark. This just doesn’t make sense - none of this does. There’s literally hundreds of points - that one of them destroys the entire story. And I know that the professor, what the Dr’s doing. He’s not saying I have to prove what I’m saying. He’s saying, hey, prove what you’re saying, because it’s impossible.
Dr., continue, tell us, just in a nutshell, when you started to wake up, what the main questions were, when the light bulb really went off, how much research you did and then let’s go through your research paper.
SJ: Ok, sounds good Alex. Well it was actually last May, so I’m kind of a Johnny-come-lately to this research but I’ve really studied it vigorously since then - but in May I went to a talk by a woman who had had a near-death experience, and my wife’s very interested in this and I have some interest in it, but it wasn’t that, it was her comment. She said, just in passing -‘If you think that the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to planes and fire, you’ve got a lot of surprises ahead of you’ - and the audience just exploded in applause, and I’m sitting there; ‘what, I, (laughs) what is she talking about,’ so apparently quite a few people around here had studied this and she hit a point that raised a great deal of interest, and certainly in me. I decided I’d better study this and find out what was going on.
AJ: So just out of the blue you saw this facade, this facade fall down. You saw the matrix for a second.
SJ: Yeah, ok, right, but I mean to me it was just the initiation of the research, then I,- fortunately I found Jim Hoffman’s wtc7.net very quickly. Jim has done a great deal of solid research. In my paper, I point out that there’s some research that is not as solid, that tends to distract from the more firm scientific effort, unfortunately. But Jim’s, - getting into his research - and following up on some points, conservation of momentum I looked at. The building seven, the squibs coming off; I looked at the timing of the sequence of these squibs, and of course I’m in communication then with Jim Hoffman….
AJ: For laymen, tell us what squibs are.
SJ: Oh sure. When a building is demolished, and I have read up on building demolition, it’s a very interesting field and it doesn’t take a Phd to understand when you have an explosion you get a puff or jet of gas and dust that comes off near the explosion, and often these jets of debris coming flying out of the building.
AJ: And magically we see venting on all three.
SJ: (Laughs) Venting is a good word, or, ah, squibs is what they’re called in the demolition field, these jets of debris that come shooting out.
AJ: It’s kind of like if I punch you in the nose it’s going to start bleeding.
SJ: Yeah, or a tooth might fly out-
SJ: - if you hit it hard enough. So these buildings
in particular, in particular building seven, the way the squibs appear
is quite fascinating. Then the next step for me after doing some analysis,
some math, and looking at the free fall or the time of collapse, building
seven falls just very rapidly. I mean freefall from the roof is 6.0
seconds . I had students time it with me and we got just about 6.3
seconds, so, I mean, this building is supported with 24 steel columns
in the center and a lot of perimeter columns, I forget the number
SJ: Yeah. The evidence is there for that, so, again, my point of view is this needs to be seriously investigated. You see the kink, as you mention, in the building near the center, implying that the core columns have been pulled or cut with some type of explosive. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist -
AJ: And Dr., tell folks why they do that.
SJ: Well, you do that to pull the center down, the outer walls lean in a bit. You can see this in the video, and then the building collapsed symmetrically straight down.
AJ: That way you only blow up the buildings that are with a particular client with your black-op operation. You don’t hurt the goodies around it.
SJ: Well, that would be correct. I mean, if the intent is to just bring the one building down on it’s footprint, you have to plan carefully and plant the explosives carefully.
AJ: You’ve said it Dr. It takes months of total precision. These are textbook. These are A+ controlled demolitions.
AJ: Going back to our guest, and I’m so honored to have on the line with us, from Brigham Young University, and that is of course Steven E. Jones. Dr. Jones is a professor of physics. This is what he studies. For every reaction there is an equal or greater reaction and we’re now seeing the chickens come home to roost on this fairy tale, because now the people that don’t want to - people who said I was a kook two years ago, I mean big reporters at ABC news years ago and other people who’ve attacked me, Washington Post and others; before I was crazy to say there were bombs in the buildings, but now ’oh yeah, there probably were bombs. AlQaeda had planted them.’ Folks it takes months of teams drilling and planting to do this - ok, do you understand? But I’m going to shut up. Let’s go back to the professor.
Professor, you were talking about problems with the official story as you were awakening in the last year, as you were researching this, as you were studying this - please continue sir.
SJ: Alright, I’d be glad to do that, Alex. Before I go on to problems in the official story, what you said triggered some thought in my mind about why I decided to go public. I mean I mentioned why I decided to research it - initially just last May , so, compared to you I’m really a Johnny-come-lately here, but I have pursued it vigorously for months now. Very interesting, and it’s fascinating to find something new. And, you know, I look at conservation of momentum I look at the symmetry of the fall, the time of the fall and compare that with the conservation of momentum. The conservation of angular momentum comes to play in building (WTC2,) that is the south tower. But where I finally decided to come public with this - a lot of that had to with a man by the name of Kevin Ryan, I’m sure you know Kevin or have heard of him. He was the -
AJ: The major underwriter, yes.
SJ: - at Underwriter’s Laboratory, manager, and he wrote a letter to Frank Gayle at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, and he said; look we’ve built these models of the Trade Center towers; we’ve performed fire endurance tests and the models do not collapse. I mean, ya know, he goes through some arguments regarding the temperature required to cause the warping and creep to get actual collapse, and he said we’re just not getting with the fires - whether it’s jet fuel, which burns off fairly quickly, and then office materials, paper, furnature and so on burning - well, we’re just not getting the temperatures to cause the models to collapse. And so he said it’s very unlikely that the buildings, the World Trade Center buildings, collapsed due to fire, and damage. That combination is just not going to do it.
AJ: And by the way, we’re talking about temperatures thousands of degrees lower in many cases. For those that don’t know; people think of jet fuel - ooh jets - it must be really explosive. No, they actually - it’s much weaker and burns a lot lower than gasoline. It’s very close to kerosene.
SJ: Right. It is close to kerosene. That’s right Alex. And of course paper fires - you can imagine, a lot of us have been camping, we burn fires, you can use paper, it burns a bit hotter than wood, but you don’t see your steel pan melting or warping too badly, usually. (Laughs) And so - but the point of this is they built actual models, as requested by NIST, at Underwriters Labratory, and they didn’t collapse. And Kevin then became a whistle blower as he wrote this letter; he said it just doesn’t add up, and let me quote from NIST the final NIST report on this subject. But anyway, it’s the courage of people like Kevin Ryan that I decided, you know, I’ve got to look at this too. It’s a very serious scientific objection to the fire based theory. But let me quote from the NIST report if I can and this is in my paper, and it’s on page 141 of the final NIST report on the collapse of the towers, and it says: “NIST contracted with Underwriters Labratories incorporated to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers. All four test specimen sustained the maximum designed load for approximately two hours without collapsing. [And so they go on] These results established that this type of assembly [they’re talking about the assembly in the towers] was capable of sustaining a large gravity load without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of fires in any given location on September 11.” So in other words they’re admitting that the models, just like Kevin Ryan said, the models do not collapse, and so -
AJ: So this isn’t just our opinion -
SJ: No no -
AJ: This is being scientifically tested by the major dominant international company that underwrites these hundred-million dollar structures -
AJ: - but lets expand on that: We’ve had hundreds of major fires in the last seventy five years of modern steel buildings - the latest was the Madrid building, burned for almost twenty, ugh, forty-eight hours, excuse me, with hundred-foot white hot flames, and that’s, that’s - white hot’s is as hot as it gets - shooting out, and some tiny little inch around metal up in the ceilings collapsed but none of the big supports even got damaged. I mean there were still desks and furniture that hadn’t melted that had been in the center of the inferno. The thing looked like a giant Roman candle.
SJ: Right, exactly, and people were expecting the Madrid building to collapse, because the towers had collapsed.
AJ: CNN was going: ‘It’ll collapse just like it did in - that’s just how it is.’
SJ: But it didn’t, you know, and as you say, no building has collapsed due to fire. I mean, I have to - the repeatability of the issue in scientific terms, you can’t get a model to fail. Actual buildings that have fires, worse than the towers, certainly, or building 7, much worse - and they don’t collapse. So how are we supposed to believe the fire collapse theory - and now there’s damage too, that’s true, but not to building - ok building seven had a little damage but no jet plane hit it so this raises the issue - there must be some other hypothesis here that needs to be explored -
AJ: And then Dr., they’ve had four others and then FEMA has to go back when those get examined and say: No, that wasn’t it. First they claim a fuel oil container blew up, then it turns out it didn’t. That didn’t cause it. Then they claimed a bunch of other things . Now they said that one of the towers fell into it and knocked out the central support - everybody knows it just had some debris hit it and knock out a few windows; that’s totally false. And they just keep throwing out frauds that they even have to admit are frauds later.
SJ: Yes, well, as you read in the NIST and FEMA reports which I’ve read through - it makes interesting reading actually, because, like the part I just quoted -
AJ: It’s like they have split personalities.
SJ: Yeah, the models don’t fail but ummm, we’ll try computer hypotheticals, is what they resorted to in the NIST report. Now FEMA had the decency to say; look, this hypothesis - they call it the best hypothesis, it’s the only one they looked at, really, which is fire caused collapse of building seven - has only a low probability of occurance. I quote that in my paper also, it’s FEMA, so to their credit they admit: We don’t understand - and they say, they say that; we don’t understand. But what they should do as good scientists is say; now, what other hypothesis might apply? We see squibs. We see a fast symmetrical collapse of this building. Hmmmm, it looks a little bit like controlled demolition, maybe we should consider - but they don’t -
AJ: That’s exactly what I was about to bring up Dr. What is it in science when all the evidence over and over again in scientific testing shows, and in real life over and over again, replicated with the exact same response, but then they ignore all of that historical evidence - ooh that’s a perfect controlled demolition - I mean there were controlled demolition experts and engineers that first day all over tv going; that looks like they blew it up, why that’s a beautiful, man I’ve blown buildings like that, that’s a crimp, that’s a, I mean then all the real experts, until they got told to shut up, were like; that’s ridiculous. But why do they ignore than then doctor?
SJ: You see, this is what we call in science - and I’ve studied a number of examples of what we call pathological science - it is putting on blinders so that you only look at - you start with a conclusion then you look at data that supports your conclusion. The conclusion in this case is the buildings came down due to damage and fire. We’re not going to even consider anything else, and that’s pathological science to ignore all these other data. And to (inaudible) that forgone conclusion -
AJ: It shows an agenda.
SJ: It does. It does., and the forgone conclusion
I mentioned in my paper is that seem to be pushing for; ‘the
Muslims did it and we don’t want to consider the possibility
of any other explanations.’ - Which is, well it’s unscientific
and we need to broaden the scientific investigation to include the
obvious hypothesis of explosive demolition.
SJ: Right -
AJ: - more and more recordings of this - all of this happening and then at the same time we have repborts like the 9-11 Commission put out where they just say; oh this was a weird building, very weak; it had no supports in it’s center. But then I actually went down to the UT archetecture department because they actually studied the building there and pulled it out and it was talking about; this was - the biggest supports ever built: Huge twenty four giant support columns. But then I turn on Why the Towers Fell on the Discovery channel and it’s: it was hollow, it’s a lattice, it was pathetically weak, but then the designer of it, -
SJ: It’s just not true -
AJ: - Namorro Yamasaki, said it could take multiple hits. The main engineer on it who died in the towers that day says it could take multiple hits; it’s some of the strongest buildings ever built Dr. And they magically say it doesn’t have these giant columns. I mean, that’s not just science, that’s, that’s just like saying the sun didn’t come up this morning.
SJ: (Chuckles) Yep, that’s true, and unfortunately they’re getting away with it so far, but see, in science when you come up with a - they finally came up with their final report report just a month ago, just over a month ago now, this is the final report on the towers by NIST, and it has glaring weaknesses that I outline and analyse in my paper, but, you know, NIST has delayed, they say decoupled, the report on building seven and now it’s overdue, so obviously they’re struggling to come up with an explanation - it’s called trying to fit the hypothesis, that’s a characteristic of bad science, by the way - but anyway (laughs) obviously they’re struggling to fit the hypothesis that fire caused the collapse of building seven . It just does not add up.
AJ: So Dr., where does it go from here? I mean, more and more prominent individuals - I remember that within a week they had one of the chief scientists at the big mining college in New Mexico with several degrees, doctorates, and he went public and said only explosives could do this; I’ve done the mass-explosives ratio. He’s an explosives doctor, expert on that - an explosives engineer, excuse me - and they just said we’re going to take your funding if you don’t shut up and he suddenly said, ok, I’m wrong, I’ll shut up. Have you talked to Him?
SJ: Romero. No, I haven’t actually talked to him. I’ve talked to others. Jack Weyland, professer up in Idaho, and Jeff Straul (sp) who’s out at University of California Berkeley. Jim Hoffman of course. David Griffin has done some excellent work, as you know, and books on these subjects. But I haven’t talked to Romero. I was disappointed in his retraction, without an explanation. Usually when a scientist retracts a statement which is, as you say, a very strong statement - It looks just like demolition, the characteristics match, demolition and so on. This is on 9-11. - But then for him to retract a few days later without an explanation, that makes me think; well, that’s not very scientific.
AJ: That’s right, excuse me, when the physicist Stephen Hawking came out and said - ok I was wrong about my black hole hypothesis - he then gave the equations and said why.
SJ: Here’s why. Sure, that’s the scientific way.
AJ: All right, well Dr., please stay with us for one more little final segment. We’ve been so honored to have you. Any key point you want to make on the other side, we’ll be able to do that. We’ll be right back my friends, with Dr. Jones.
We’re going to talk to Lou in California and a few others that want to talk to you Dr, here briefly. Anything else you’d like to add?
SJ: Well, let’s see. There is an issue that I’ve looked at that’s puzzling, and you’ve been to ground zero, and that is this molten metal, that’s reported. It’s in publications that molten metal was found in the basement of both towers after they collapsed, and, building seven. But to me that’s a prime piece of scientific information. It is not mentioned in any of the government-funded reports.
AJ: When was it? Four or five weeks later? I mean these are massive photos. Resonance, heat resonance , and it is there and even conventional explosives wouldn’t do that. This is bizarre.
AJ: Well the government reports Dr., say that giant columns don’t exist.
SJ: Yeah, well, FEMA. - Or at least they tended to use that as an explanation. I think though that this molten metal - now I’m not convinced it was molten steel until it’s analysed, you see, and so in my paper I call for, as a scientific courtesy, when a government agency, which is taxpayer money, (laughs) does a report they should make them, the data, available to another scientist. ‘said I wanted to look at this.
AJ: But they didn’t allow any photography -
SJ: I know.
AJ: - and they GPSed each piece of metal and they guarded it like it was a big dirty secret.
AJ: Yeah, Communist China can have it, basically have it, but we’re not allowed to even look at it.
SJ: Yeah, it’s very strange, and of course over the protests of courageous people like Bill Manning, of Fire Engineering Journal, and others protesting the destruction of that evidence -
AJ: That’s right, and they said the way that building collapsed didn’t make sense, but these are just firefighter engineers, let’s not listen to them. What do they know?
SJ: (Laughs,) Yeah of course they’ve had a lot of experience with a - So anyway, I’ve accessed molten metal. I’m hoping that they’ve saved a small sample, somebody, FEMA or NIST or somebody, that we can analyse because I think that this will be what we call a crucial experiment, if it’s iron. What I’m predicting is it’ll be iron as opposed to steel and that would imply the thermite reaction which produces molten iron as the end product .
AJ: That is the seperation in the molecules in the steel.
SJ: Well, no, no, it’s actually not, it’s a -
AJ: I’ll tell you what. Stay there Dr, we’ve got to break, the clock waits for no man. We’ll come right back and let you finish.
AJ: All right folks, we’re back live and
we’re talking right now to a physicist from Brigham Young University.
Headline: Professor thinks bombs not planes toppled WTC. That’s
the Desert Morning News headline, and he’s of course Dr. Steven
SJ: So the reaction in thermite, the chemical
reaction, involves iron oxide, basically rust, with which we’re
mostly all of us familiar, and aluminum powder, and when these are
caused to ignite - which requires a fairly high temperature to touch
it off, like burning magnesium - but once it ignites it burns extremely
hot, as you say. Hot enough to melt steel, yes, cut right through
steel, and it can even evaporate steel. It’s that hot. But the
end products of thermites; you have iron oxide plus aluminum. It produces
aluminum oxide, that’s where the great heat release comes. There.
Plus molten iron. Essentially pure iron then with this aluminum oxide
as a residue would be found with the thermite reaction. So these large
pools of molten iron under both towers and building seven is a smoking
gun - for something, some very high temperature reaction, and it indicates
thermite. Now until we do the actual analysis we can’t say that
for sure, but I certainly hope that scientists somewhere saved a small
SJ: It’s not likely, Alex, to be that type of - it’s fairly sophisticated to cut steel beams using thermite, but the point I’m trying to get at is we need to analyse that and surely some investigator said wait, this molten metal; what in the world is that metal? Let’s analyse it -
AJ: So you think the evidence points towards the thermite -
SJ: I think it points towards it, yes., and until we actually do the tests we can’t be certain -
AJ: But there’s a problem Dr., there’s a problem. They’ve done everything they can to hide that crime scene and to obscond with the evidence -
SJ: I know
AJ: - and not let us get to it. So it’ll be a cold day in hell when that happens.
SJ: (Laughs) Well, I’m just hoping they’ll say; well, let’s see, we have to at least do the science. I’m hoping that we can get some samples. The other thing is it’s possible and likely, actually, that the metalurgist involved in the FEMA study - what was his name, Jonathan, I can’t remember his last name now, - but anyway, that they actually did an analysis. It just takes less than an hour literally. Actually Flourescense analysis, for instance, on the metal, this molten metal, you could determine; is it mostly iron? I mean does it look like it’s not molten steel? Or is it iron with chromium and so on that makes it look like steel. And just a very simple test which could tell us so much about what happened -
SJ: - what caused these high temperatures, which by the way, the fires, the jet fuel and the burning office materials cannot melt the steel. The scientists all agree on that.
AJ: All right, Dr., we’re out of time. I want to thank you -
SJ: All right.
AJ: I want to thank you for joining us. Can we get you back up in the near future with an update?
SJ: I suppose we could, and - my best regards to Paul Craig Roberts. I communicated with him over email.
AJ: Well, he’s in the wings right now,
about to come on, so you’re saying high to him right now. Thank
you Dr. Jones.
AJ: Take care.
Get Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson's books, ALL Alex's documentary films, films by other authors, audio interviews and special reports. Sign up at Prison Planet.tv - CLICK HERE.