Re: Physics Professor's Peer Reviewed Paper on WTC CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS on 9/11
Darkwing
"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9772CA5...@130.81.64.196...
> Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds of
> people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
> events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed on Google
> Video, or downloaded to your computer.
>
>
> The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:
>
> "I presented my objections to the "official" theory at a seminar at BYU
> on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and
> scientific arguments for the controlled demolition theory. In attendance
> were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering,
> Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics - and
> perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people
> present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah
> Valley State College).
>
> The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only
> when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material
> summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the
> collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, only one attendee disagreed (by hand-
> vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for.
> The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about
> it and now agreed that more investigation was needed."
>
>
>
> Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding are
> based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.
>
> In other words, you won't find any people using terms like kook, tin foil
> hat, or any other childish terms. The people who understand his
> scientific evidence are clear minded and not closed asshole headed like a
> lot of people in this newsgroup seem to be. You people are pathetic.
>
>
> You stupid people don't know anything about anything when it comes to
> 9/11.
>
> The airplanes were flown by remote control. The events were for the
> purpose of building public support to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Some
> of you will still deny this fact. If so, it will be because your thinking
> process is too much filled with tin foil hat commments, and you're too
> stupid and brainwashed to understand real evidence
So when Atta come over the ATC frequency on accident instead of the onboard
PA that was just all computer controlled? What about the people on the
planes who said that they seen the hijackers enter the cockpit while on the
phones to their families? I guess all this "data" doesn't fit into the grand
conspiracy that you have cooked up.
Let's see. Muslim terrorists hijack airliners and crash then into buildings
because they can't get away from the death cult of Islam OR the goobermint
faked it all to start an unpopular war where nothing has been gained. Gee
that is a toughy.
-------------------------------------------
DW
TRUTH
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steven-jones-utah-seminar-video.html
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://st911.org
Watch the day-long Congressional Briefing on the 9/11 coverup taped and
aired by C-SPAN:
http://www.question911.com/links.php
TRUTH
news:JPGdnVugpN7...@giganews.com:
As I said before, the telephone calls were all faked, using new voice
synthesizer technology.
When was the last you called your mom and told her your last name?
"Mom, this is Mark Bingham"
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/chart.html
>
> Let's see. Muslim terrorists hijack airliners and crash then into
> buildings because they can't get away from the death cult of Islam OR
> the goobermint faked it all to start an unpopular war where nothing
> has been gained. Gee that is a toughy.
>
> -------------------------------------------
> DW
>
I'm sorry, but the evil doers are in our own government
Jim Logajan
> Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds
> of people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's
> version of events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed
> on Google Video, or downloaded to your computer.
>
>
> The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:
1) It was NOT peer reviewed.
2) The URL of his paper: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
> Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding
> are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.
Jones is not a qualified building engineer. He has repeatedly founded
elaborate theories on tiny bits of evidence. For example, he also
believes that Jesus Christ visited ancient America:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm
You and Jones both make the mistake of starting from a conclusion and
selecting facts that support it while ignoring those that don't. The next
step you take is to assume, incorrectly, that attacking someone elses
explanation X automatically makes your explanation Y the correct answer.
TRUTH
news:Xns9772B36D6CFA...@216.168.3.30:
Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed. Perhaps if you look into it instead of
jumping to wild half baked conclusions (being the government's absurd)
version, you'd see it.
Chad Irby
TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds of
> people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
> events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed on Google
> Video, or downloaded to your computer.
>
>
> The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:
...and the rest of the faculty at his university and in his department
say:
"Professor Jones零 department and college administrators are not
convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to
relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer
review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of
Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor
Jones."
TRUTH
therefore qualified to determine if the government's version defies
physics. And since his paper, and the 150 people in st911.org, use science,
and not kooky proofless boxcutter nonsense, they can see that the WTC was
taken down by controled demolitions. So can anyone else who looks at the
information I posted.
Darkwing
The people on the other end sure seemed to be convinced they were talking to
their loved ones. Your "facts" are utter bullshit. How convenient that we
have new voice synthesizer technology. The government is to incompetent to
do anything close to this magnitude.
----------------------------------------------
DW
Darkwing
"Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cirby-35F25A....@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com...
Next he will be taking on stem cells with renowned South Korean
microbiologist.....
------------------------------------------
DW
khobar
> people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
> events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed on Google
> Video, or downloaded to your computer.
>
>
> The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:
>
> on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and
> scientific arguments for the controlled demolition theory. In attendance
> were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering,
> Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics - and
> perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people
> present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah
> Valley State College).
>
> The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only
> when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material
> summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the
> collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, only one attendee disagreed (by hand-
> vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for.
> The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about
> it and now agreed that more investigation was needed."
>
>
>
> Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding are
> based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.
Wow...dozens of supporters.
I'm convinced.
Paul Nixon
TRUTH
Umm.. no they weren't. Some of them stated that they did not act like
their loved ones. The government version of 9/11 is utter bullshit. There
are no facts to back them up.
Here are some 9/11 FACTS. They are indisputable. You disagree? Prove it.
Believe me, you won't be able to.
FACT: Never before in world history has a steel framed building
completely collapsed from fire. Not before 9/11, not after 9/11.
Never!
FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!
FACT: WTC 7 collapsed from "fire and debris", according to the government
FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall speed,
into their own footprints.
FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out of
all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.
FACT: Explosives expert Van Romero said just days after 9/11 that he
could tell all three buildings collapsed from controlled demolition just
by watching the video footage
FACT: Romero recanted just a few days later without giving any scientific
explanation as to why. He was then promoted.
FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on the
entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just happened to
include terrorist attack insurance
FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's insurance
company told the Discovery Channel that the Towers' massive vertical
columns all failed simultaneously, and mimicked controlled demolition
FACT: Silverstein said WTC7 was "pulled" on a PBS documentary
FACT: In that same documentary, a construction worker used the word
"pull" as slang for "professionally demolish"
FACT: The WTC7 fire alarm was put into "test mode" the morning of 9/11
FACT: Silverstein was absent from his 88th floor office in the North
Tower on the morning of 9/11 due to a "doctors appointment"
FACT: Over a hundred witnesses have made statements of explosions
FACT: The FBI was going under the assumption that bombs were in the
buildings.
FACT: The FDNY Chief Of Safely told an NBC reporter there might be a
secondary device in the building
FACT: FDNY personnel (including Fire Commissioners, Fire Marshals,
Captains, and Lieutenants) reported flashes, bombs, and explosions
that they compared to controlled demolitions.
FACT: Many of the FDNY personnel above stated that controlled demolition
was their gut instinct.
FACT: The NIST investigators made the assumption that collapse initiation
would "inevitably" lead to global collapse, despite the fact that it
never happened before in world history.
FACT: The NIST investigators performed little analysis of the structural
behavior of the Towers following collapse initiation
FACT: The NIST investigators altered the data for their computer
simulations
FACT: The NIST investigators refuse to show their computer simulation
model despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers.
Jim Logajan
> Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed.
By what journal?
TRUTH
Jim Logajan
> Jones does not need to be a building engineer. He's a physicist and is
> therefore qualified to determine if the government's version defies
> physics.
So? I have a physics degree too.
Why do you listen to Jones and not the people with physics and engineering
degrees who wrote the reports that contradict Jones' theory? If you were
really objective, you'd consider their analysis too. You'd quote from them
equally and contrast the explanations yourself. But my guess is that you
don't have the technical background to do that, so you are using subjective
criteria that leads you to unfounded beliefs.
Darkwing
No building has ever had a terrorist fly a completely loaded B757 into it
either.
>
> FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!
Falling debris took that down.
>
> FACT: WTC 7 collapsed from "fire and debris", according to the government
Good call.
>
> FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
> Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall speed,
> into their own footprints.
It fell after the damage finally took its toll, big whoop.
>
> FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out of
> all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.
That is the levels pancaking on top of one another, the building didn't
simply "fall over".
>
> FACT: Explosives expert Van Romero said just days after 9/11 that he
> could tell all three buildings collapsed from controlled demolition just
> by watching the video footage
There are plenty of "experts" that are wrong.
>
> FACT: Romero recanted just a few days later without giving any scientific
> explanation as to why. He was then promoted.
>
And.....
> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on the
> entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just happened to
> include terrorist attack insurance
That was not the first time the WTC had been terrorist attacked, DUH!
>
> FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's insurance
> company told the Discovery Channel that the Towers' massive vertical
> columns all failed simultaneously, and mimicked controlled demolition
>
Mimicked doesn't mean is.
> FACT: Silverstein said WTC7 was "pulled" on a PBS documentary
>
They decided to not try and save it, once again big whoop.
> FACT: In that same documentary, a construction worker used the word
> "pull" as slang for "professionally demolish"
See above.
>
> FACT: The WTC7 fire alarm was put into "test mode" the morning of 9/11
>
And this could of been standard issue or bad timing, happens every day.
> FACT: Silverstein was absent from his 88th floor office in the North
> Tower on the morning of 9/11 due to a "doctors appointment"
>
Oh my god he went to the doctor???!
> FACT: Over a hundred witnesses have made statements of explosions
>
All sorts of shit was going crazy, eyewitness testimony is notoriously
BOGUS.
> FACT: The FBI was going under the assumption that bombs were in the
> buildings.
>
As well they should in any kind of terrorist incident.
> FACT: The FDNY Chief Of Safely told an NBC reporter there might be a
> secondary device in the building
MIGHT doesn't mean WAS.
>
> FACT: FDNY personnel (including Fire Commissioners, Fire Marshals,
> Captains, and Lieutenants) reported flashes, bombs, and explosions
> that they compared to controlled demolitions.
>
Once again it doesn't prove shit.
> FACT: Many of the FDNY personnel above stated that controlled demolition
> was their gut instinct.
>
See above. Experts are wrong a lot.
> FACT: The NIST investigators made the assumption that collapse initiation
> would "inevitably" lead to global collapse, despite the fact that it
> never happened before in world history.
When 30% of the upper part of a high rise building has tons of JetA on fire
as well as office equipment and more on fire it is no wonder that the
buildings couldn't take that weight and structual damage.
>
> FACT: The NIST investigators performed little analysis of the structural
> behavior of the Towers following collapse initiation
>
The building fell down and the reason was pretty fucking easy to see, fully
loaded jets heading aross the country full of Jet A hit the building at high
speed and exploded. Doesn't take a rocket scientist.
> FACT: The NIST investigators altered the data for their computer
> simulations
>
Says the conspiracy nut....
> FACT: The NIST investigators refuse to show their computer simulation
> model despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers.
Bullshit.
TRUTH
You're making the assumption that people have been proving Jones wrong.
That is not true. If you know otherwise, please prove it.
I do not have a physics/engineering degree, but do have a technical
background, and definitely have an abundance of common sense.
Look at the info in my other posts. If you have a physics degree, I
challenge you to read Jones' paper and demonstrate that anything that he
has to say to be false.
Are you aware these NIST facts?
FACT: The NIST investigators made the assumption that collapse initiation
would "inevitably" lead to global collapse, despite the fact that it never
happened before in world history.
FACT: The NIST investigators performed little analysis of the structural
behavior of the Towers following collapse initiation
FACT: The NIST investigators altered the data for their computer
simulations
FACT: The NIST investigators refuse to show their computer simulation model
Darkwing
> Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote in
> According to BYU's website, it has not been properly submitted yet. But
> once enought people can't on, it defintely will be. The 9/11 Truth
> Movement
> has been growing very rapidy. Especially the past 6 months or so, with all
> the evidence and prominent people speaking up
Oh so now the TRUTH comes out. Peer reviewed means journal, EVERYONE knows
this so take your meds and quit posting this shit in our nice little news
group where we talk about small little airplanes.
--------------------------------------------
DW
Darkwing
> silly conspiracy theories. Doing this is a predetermination of where
> you're beliefs will be. You cannot argue with science. And if you dispute
> it, you obviously didn't look into it
You're right I can't argue with GOOD science, show me some good REAL science
that is falsifiable and you're on. I HAVE looked into the 9/11 conspiracys
and they are all bullshit.
-----------------------------------------------
DW
Darkwing
I did.
----------------------------------------------
DW
Jim Logajan
> FACT: Never before in world history has a steel framed building
> completely collapsed from fire. Not before 9/11, not after 9/11.
> Never!
And never before or since have jets crashed into steel frame buildings.
> FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!
When the buildings next to it collapsed, all the kinetic energy of the
debris radiated outward on impacting the ground. It got hit by a
"shaped" explosion that tore into its base. No mystery except to those
who get their physics second hand.
> FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
> Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall speed,
> into their own footprints.
Steel frame buildings have collapsed in strong earthquakes in precisely
the same manner. Scroll down to "Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame
Office Building" in this set of slides:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/slideset/3/3_slides.shtml
> FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out of
> all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.
Puffs of smoke may be fact - "sign of controlled demolition" is
speculation. So your statement is not a fact. If puffs of smoke had not
come out of the buildings immediately prior to collapse, then THAT would
have been peculiar!
> FACT: Explosives expert Van Romero said just days after 9/11 that he
> could tell all three buildings collapsed from controlled demolition
> just by watching the video footage
That's an opinion. Sure, its a fact he has an opinion, but so what?
> FACT: Romero recanted just a few days later without giving any
> scientific explanation as to why. He was then promoted.
FACT: Now you have to do your own thinking.
> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on the
> entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just happened
> to include terrorist attack insurance
Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that needed
to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know how hard it
is to hide an undertaking like that!?
> FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's insurance
> company told the Discovery Channel that the Towers' massive vertical
> columns all failed simultaneously, and mimicked controlled demolition
Since a steel frame building collapsed in just the same manner in a
Mexican earthquake, we now know that simultaneous collapse does not need
human action.
cjcampbell
TRUTH wrote:
> Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds of
> people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
> events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed on Google
> Video, or downloaded to your computer.
>
>
> The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:
Yes. And the peers laughed hysterically. Jones is the laughing stock of
academe right now.
So, your argument boils down to this:
1) It is too difficult for people on board the plane to fly it into a
building, so the CIA must have done it by remote control. <sorry, but I
am having trouble typing while laughing hysterically and slapping my
knees>
2) Nevertheless, it was not airplanes that destroyed the WTC but
controlled demolitions. <It must have been difficult drilling all those
holes in the building and installing demolitions and wires and such for
months preparing for all this without a single solitary soul noticing
it.>
3) And all this as a pretext to invade Afghanistan (whatever for? to
control the non-existent oil pipeline there?) and Iraq (from which not
a solitary drop of oil has flowed into the coffers of anyone in the
US). Never mind that the reasons for invading Iraq had almost nothing
to do with 9/11. Most on both sides of the aisle at the time believed
that Iraq had or was developing WMDs, notwithstanding that this belief
was partially based on faulty intelligence and mitigated by the fact
that Iraq's own military establishment seems to have also believed it.
Indeed, the "yellow cake" affair from which the Plame scandal grew
appears now to have been completely vindicated; Iraq really was trying
to buy yellow cake uranium. It turned out that Wilson simply dismissed
the allegation without investigating it all -- which, as a government
agent, you would think he would have been high on the list of people
trying to start the war.
Frankly, "TRUTH," you need to change your handle: to LIAR.
TRUTH
Okay, so I make a little mistake and since you're so closed minded, you
think that negates all the scientific facts. LOL
cjcampbell
Jim Logajan wrote:
> TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds
> > of people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's
> > version of events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed
> > on Google Video, or downloaded to your computer.
> >
> >
> > The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:
>
> 1) It was NOT peer reviewed.
> 2) The URL of his paper: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
> > Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding
> > are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.
>
> Jones is not a qualified building engineer. He has repeatedly founded
> elaborate theories on tiny bits of evidence. For example, he also
> believes that Jesus Christ visited ancient America:
A little unfair attacking Jones' religious beliefs. After all, I also
believe that Jesus Christ visited ancient America, but I don't believe
Jones (who is a laughing stock at BYU) and I don't believe LIAR's
conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, I see your point.
Jim Logajan
"Peer review" has a clear meaning to everyone in the science community.
You've just admitted to lying to promote your unscientific view - the very
same charge you are leveling at others. Don't you think it absurd to use a
handle like TRUTH to lie and mislead others?
Chad Irby
TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
> WTC7 was NOT hit by an airplane.
Neither were the other buildings in the area, but the fires and other
damage sure affected them, too.
TRUTH
> TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> FACT: Never before in world history has a steel framed building
>> completely collapsed from fire. Not before 9/11, not after 9/11.
>> Never!
WTC 7 was NOT hit by an airplane
>
> And never before or since have jets crashed into steel frame
> buildings.
>
>> FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!
>
> When the buildings next to it collapsed, all the kinetic energy of the
> debris radiated outward on impacting the ground. It got hit by a
> "shaped" explosion that tore into its base. No mystery except to those
> who get their physics second hand.
totally illogical. It never happened before.
>
>> FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
>> Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall
>> speed, into their own footprints.
>
> Steel frame buildings have collapsed in strong earthquakes in
> precisely the same manner. Scroll down to "Totally Collapsed 21-Story
> Steel Frame Office Building" in this set of slides:
>
> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/slideset/3/3_slides.shtml
None of those building's collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall
speed, into their own footprints. And none of those Mexico City buildings
are steel framed.
>
>> FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out of
>> all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.
>
> Puffs of smoke may be fact - "sign of controlled demolition" is
> speculation. So your statement is not a fact. If puffs of smoke had
> not come out of the buildings immediately prior to collapse, then THAT
> would have been peculiar!
Watch the clips
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
See the squibs here:
http://st12.startlogic.com/
~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
>> FACT: Explosives expert Van Romero said just days after 9/11 that he
>> could tell all three buildings collapsed from controlled demolition
>> just by watching the video footage
>
> That's an opinion. Sure, its a fact he has an opinion, but so what?
It's leads to the explanation of controlled demolitions
>
>> FACT: Romero recanted just a few days later without giving any
>> scientific explanation as to why. He was then promoted.
>
> Now you have to do your own thinking.
Yes I do. Perhaps he didn't want to get an anthrax letter like the two
senators who opposed the Patriot Act did.
>
>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on the
>> entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just happened
>> to include terrorist attack insurance
>
> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
> needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
> how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend before
9/11. Also, Bush's brother Marvin was one of the directors in charge of
WTC security.
>
>> FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's insurance
>> company told the Discovery Channel that the Towers' massive vertical
>> columns all failed simultaneously, and mimicked controlled demolition
>
> Since a steel frame building collapsed in just the same manner in a
> Mexican earthquake, we now know that simultaneous collapse does not
> need human action.
>
This is not true
Chad Irby
TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed.
Actually, a couple of guys looked it over for publication in a
heavily-slanted collection of articles on 9/11. not in any sort of real
peer-reviewed journal with any sort of bearing on the actual subject.
Chad Irby
TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9772B925D5BF...@216.168.3.30:
>
> > TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed.
> >
> > By what journal?
>
> Okay, if you mean peer reviewed in that sense, it was not as of yet.
Oh, in other words, a NON-peer-reviewed paper.
Matt Whiting
> Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed. Perhaps if you look into it instead of
> jumping to wild half baked conclusions (being the government's absurd)
> version, you'd see it.
By peers, I assume you mean people as wacky as him?
Matt
Orval Fairbairn
TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
(snipped)
>
> With your comment above, you are obiviously associating 9/11 Truth with
> silly conspiracy theories. Doing this is a predetermination of where
> you're beliefs will be. You cannot argue with science. And if you dispute
> it, you obviously didn't look into it
*WE* are not arguing with science! It is "TRUTH" who is and is losing --
badly!
1) "TRUTH" posits a crackpot professor's idea and claims that it has
been peer reviewed. It has -- but the good professor's peers reject the
story.
2) "TRUTH" posts in aviation newsgroups seeking validation for his (or
some other crackpot's) contention that the hijackers couldn't have flown
the 757s into the buildings and gets 100% response that they could have
done it.
3) "TRUTH" posits that no plane struck the Pentagon -- Purdue University
shows the complete engineering analysis of what happened when the lane
hit the Pentagon.
It is time for "TRUTH", "EagleEye", "Emmanuel Goldstein" and all the
rest of their ilk to go away and hide in their caves in Afghanistan,
with their buddies bin Laden and Zawahiri and await the next B-1 full of
deep penetrators which they all richly deserve.
TRUTH
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:
WTC7 collapsed in classic controlled demolition style.
TRUTH
news:orfairbairn-BEE2...@news.east.earthlink.net:
You are proving yourself to be the idiot. You have not explained ANY of
the scientific evidence. Scienctific laws CANNOT be changed. But since
you think they can be, perhaps you believe in Martians too?
Chad Irby
TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Okay, so I make a little mistake
...like claiming a paper is peer reviewed, like claiming pretty much
everything you've said in this thread (including screwing up the title
of the thread itself)?
Frank F. Matthews
Christ's visit to America. He is neither an expert on materials or
demolition.
TRUTH wrote:
> Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds of
> people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
> events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed on Google
> Video, or downloaded to your computer.
>
>
> The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:
>
> "I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU
> on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and
> scientific arguments for the controlled demolition theory. In attendance
> were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering,
> Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and
> perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people
> present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah
> Valley State College).
>
> The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only
> when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material
> summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the
> collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, only one attendee disagreed (by hand-
> vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for.
> The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about
> it and now agreed that more investigation was needed."
>
>
>
> Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding are
> based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.
>
TRUTH
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:
How about reading the paper for yourself?
Frank F. Matthews
TRUTH wrote:
> Jones does not need to be a building engineer. He's a physicist and is
> therefore qualified to determine if the government's version defies
> physics. And since his paper, and the 150 people in st911.org, use science,
> and not kooky proofless boxcutter nonsense, they can see that the WTC was
> taken down by controled demolitions. So can anyone else who looks at the
> information I posted.
Not really. He is lately an expert in Cold Fusion and Christ's visit to
America.
His arguments are not particularly plausible or convincing.
TRUTH
The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.
The idea that the Towers could collapse at near free fall speed from fire
is absurd.
How did the 47 MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS in the Towers severe? And HOW did
they ALL severe at the SAME TIME?
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in
news:B1aLf.30684$7y1....@tornado.texas.rr.com:
TRUTH
His arguments are based on scientific principles. They do not have to be
convincing, since scientific laws cannot be changed, such as the Law of
Increasing Entropy. Are you an engineer or physicist?
How do explain THREE collapses at near free fall speed? First time in
history from fire!
Where did the energy come from to pulvarize concrete and office furniture
into particles of fine powder?
Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?
Why was there moltel metal and yellow-hot metal under the Towers (AND
BUILDING 7) weeks after 9/11? (Those colors are consistant with thermite
explosives.)
Also, why did the government hall away and destroy the evidence before it
could be properly analyzed?
RAK
..............
>
> In other words, you won't find any people using terms like kook, tin foil
> hat, or any other childish terms. The people who understand his
> scientific evidence are clear minded and not closed asshole headed like a
> lot of people in this newsgroup seem to be. You people are pathetic.
>
>
> You stupid people don't know anything about anything when it comes to
> 9/11.
>
Perhaps I would take more notice of your arguements if you did not
automatically assume that I, being in the news group, must be a "tin foil
hat" (whatever that is), "pathetic" and "stupid", etc. If you jump to that
conclusion about me when you do not know a single thing about me (except
that I am in this group) then I really find it hard tohave any faith in your
ability to judge other issues.
Insulting people is not a good way to get them on your side.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Chad Irby
TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Jones does not need to be a building engineer. He's a physicist and is
> therefore qualified to determine if the government's version defies
> physics.
Actually, all that qualifies him to do is *particle* physics (his
speciality is cold fusion, of all things).
This qualifies him for analyzing a fantasy "building demolition" about
as much as it qualifies him to design a skyscraper - in other words, not
at all.
Meanwhile, actual building demolition experts say people like this are
full of shit.
TRUTH
news:43fd3412$0$27785$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com:
Don't get me wrong. Those comments by me above were directly solely to
the people who already insulted, and said similar things as above to me.
TRUTH
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> Meanwhile, actual building demolition experts say people like this are
> full of shit.
>
Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or structural
engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false
Jim Logajan
>>> FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!
>>
>> When the buildings next to it collapsed, all the kinetic energy of
>> the debris radiated outward on impacting the ground. It got hit by a
>> "shaped" explosion that tore into its base. No mystery except to
>> those who get their physics second hand.
>
> totally illogical. It never happened before.
You are unqualified to make that determination. As I said before, I have a
physics degree. You don't. Contact the University of Minnesota and ask them
if James Logajan holds a degree in physics if you don't believe me.
I'm using my real name and have nothing to hide. What is your real name,
and where did you get your education? If you insist on arguing from
authority, you need to present your credentials.
>>> FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
>>> Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall
>>> speed, into their own footprints.
>>
>> Steel frame buildings have collapsed in strong earthquakes in
>> precisely the same manner. Scroll down to "Totally Collapsed 21-Story
>> Steel Frame Office Building" in this set of slides:
>>
>> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/slideset/3/3_slides.shtml
>
>
> None of those building's collapsed almost symmetrically, near free
> fall speed, into their own footprints. And none of those Mexico City
> buildings are steel framed.
Which part of "Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building" do
you not understand? Why do you outright lie when presented with facts like
these? The photo shows the remains of a steel framed building that has
clearly collapsed into its own footprint.
>>> FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out
>>> of all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.
>>
>> Puffs of smoke may be fact - "sign of controlled demolition" is
>> speculation. So your statement is not a fact. If puffs of smoke had
>> not come out of the buildings immediately prior to collapse, then
>> THAT would have been peculiar!
>
>
> Watch the clips
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
>
>
> See the squibs here:
>
> http://st12.startlogic.com/
> ~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
1) Explosions would be set to occur before or at the collapse - not after.
2) If the lower floors collapsed first, then the compressed air must escape
somehow - windows would be expected to be blown out as the building
collapses.
3) If there was a conspiracy to blow up the building, it would have been
easier to blow one side of the building - only an incompetent conspirator
would go to the trouble of planting explosives in the upper floors _and_
arrange a symmetrical collapse. Needless hard work.
>>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on
>>> the entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
>>> happened to include terrorist attack insurance
>>
>> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
>> needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
>> how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
>
>
> Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
> before 9/11. Also, Bush's brother Marvin was one of the directors in
> charge of WTC security.
Um, doesn't lack of power make drilling harder? And just how does one
person manage such a vast security breach? This is taking place in the
center of an area that has one of the highest population densities on the
planet. Don't you think that someone might have noticed something? How many
people do you think live and work near there anyway???
>>> FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's
>>> insurance company told the Discovery Channel that the Towers'
>>> massive vertical columns all failed simultaneously, and mimicked
>>> controlled demolition
>>
>> Since a steel frame building collapsed in just the same manner in a
>> Mexican earthquake, we now know that simultaneous collapse does not
>> need human action.
>>
>
> This is not true
Explain why not.
Jim Logajan
> Well, I am human too, and entitled to make mistakes. Your statement
> would only be believed those without the intelligence to understand
> the evidence, or who aren't capable of believing that our government
> can be evil afterall.
Lots of people believe the U.S. government can be (and has committed) evil
- I count myself as one of those.
> That's understandable I agree. Still, I have not
> read ONE reply in these threads that explain ANY of the clear
> scientific envidence provided.
You are married to the conclusion and that colors everything for you.
Orval Fairbairn
TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
"TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
landing.
BTW, I neither believe nor disbelieve in extraterrestrials, but I *do*
believe in crackpots (see above)!
The scientific facts are that a bunch of savage Wahabbi radicals
hijacked four airliners, killed the crews and proceeded to fly two of
them into the WTC and another into the Pentagon.
The plane that hit the WTC each packed several kilotons equivalent
energy which caused major structural degradation, then the subsequent
fire of 50+ tons of jet fuel, further degraded the structures until they
collapsed.
That sums up the engineering analysis of WTC. The plane that hit the
Pentagon effectively hit a very hard wall, disintegrated and burned up.
Pieces of steel were found at the site, along with minor external damage
at the site.
The passengers on the fourth plane, hearing about the first two, decided
to do something about it and overpowered some of the hijackers. The
hijackers in the cockpit either broke the plane in midair or dived it
into the ground, killing all aboard.
Now, what part of the facts doesn't "TRUTH" understand?
tim gueguen
> people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
> events "defies physics".
If you're gonna promote conspiracy theories why not promote credible ones?
A much more believeable theory would be that the 911 attacks took place as
anyone with sense believes, with hijacked airliners flying into the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, but that Osama bin Laden is actually a CIA
operative, and the creation of al Qaeda and its terrorist activities were
all at the behest of the Company. Of course you'd still have to come up
with some halfways believeable theory about why the CIA wanted bin Laden to
do all this stuff, but at least the method would be credible. Instead we
get ludicrous fantasies about robot planes and demolition charges somehow
planted in the WTC with no one noticing them.
tim gueguen 101867
Chad Irby
TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
Nope. I saw the tapes. It collapsed in classic "steel weakened by
damage and fires" style.
Some fools have tried to claim otherwise, but it's just more crap from
the looneytoons brigade.
Richard Lamb
snipped to save readers - since the bandwidth question is moot...
>
>
> "TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
> landing.
I have a kill file of exactly - one.
And that's the boy right there, officer!
> The passengers on the fourth plane, hearing about the first two, decided
> to do something about it and overpowered some of the hijackers. The
> hijackers in the cockpit either broke the plane in midair or dived it
> into the ground, killing all aboard.
I'm still rather upset that more honor has not been officially bestowed
on these people. I think of them as our modern Minute Men.
Just a few minutes into an orchestrated attack on our nation, these
people ACTED, and to my mind, became the new American Patriots.
> Now, what part of the facts doesn't "TRUTH" understand?
Well, he wasn't too sharp on Bernoulli.
Still waiting for the inevitable denunciation of the Seven Basic Machines.
I have to admit, this is the first time I've EVER found Wikipedia useful <G>.
For those unfortunate souls in rec.travel.air and rec.aviation.military who
missed the first show....
>
>
>
> But those statements do not apply to controlled demolitions at the WTC
>
>
>What made you think that this is rec.WTC.collapse.conspiracy.for.clueless.
>ragheads.that.dont.yet.understand.the.mechanics.of.a.bicycle?
>
>Hells bells, boy. We have to start your technical education SOMEwhere.
>
>I thought Bernoulli would be a relevant beginning point.
>
>LOTS of hot air, but no lift...
>
>
>Richard
>
>TRUTH wrote:
>
>
> Don't understand that at all. Perhaps if you used scientific evidence....
Grim. Ok, I think we should "start at the very beginning".
Machine
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
In mechanics, a machine is a technological device that is designed to do
something cool. Technologists throughout the ages have identified seven (7)
basic machines from which all other machines can be constructed.
The Seven (7) Basic Machines from which All Other Machines Can be Constructed
1. the screw
2. the wing nut
3. the wheel and hubcap
4. the big heavy rock
5. the pointed stick
6. the VLSI integrated circuit
7. duct tape
Chronology
The first compound machine, a big heavy rock covered with duct tape, was
invented by Og the Cave Person in 500,000 BCE. Later that evening, he figured
out a practical use for this peculiar contraption: clubbing baby proto-kittens
for fun and profit.
The next important innovation was the Rube Goldberg Machine, coincidentally
invented and patented by none other than Leonard Bernstein in 1903. Using a
mere 3,141,592,653 parts (note: some authorities say 3,141,592,655), it was
the first machine ever built that could successfully peel a tangerine by the
power of thought alone.
Chad Irby
TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
I did. He's full of shit.
And (here's the kicker) I really understand his claims, which you don't.
TRUTH
> TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>> FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!
>>>
>>> When the buildings next to it collapsed, all the kinetic energy of
>>> the debris radiated outward on impacting the ground. It got hit by a
>>> "shaped" explosion that tore into its base. No mystery except to
>>> those who get their physics second hand.
>>
>> totally illogical. It never happened before.
>
> You are unqualified to make that determination. As I said before, I
> have a physics degree. You don't. Contact the University of Minnesota
> and ask them if James Logajan holds a degree in physics if you don't
> believe me.
I believe you.
> I'm using my real name and have nothing to hide. What is your real
> name, and where did you get your education? If you insist on arguing
> from authority, you need to present your credentials.
With the stuff I'm volunteering in, I would never give my real name. I rely
on credentials of people like Dr Jones who know what *all* the evidence is.
And I try to get people to understand it.
If the evidence is false, it should be explained why it is false.
>>>> FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
>>>> Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall
>>>> speed, into their own footprints.
>>>
>>> Steel frame buildings have collapsed in strong earthquakes in
>>> precisely the same manner. Scroll down to "Totally Collapsed
>>> 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building" in this set of slides:
>>>
>>> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/slideset/3/3_slides.shtml
>>
>>
>> None of those building's collapsed almost symmetrically, near free
>> fall speed, into their own footprints. And none of those Mexico City
>> buildings are steel framed.
>
> Which part of "Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building"
> do you not understand? Why do you outright lie when presented with
> facts like these? The photo shows the remains of a steel framed
> building that has clearly collapsed into its own footprint.
Hmmmm... I will check into that. That was from an earthquake though.
>>>> FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out
>>>> of all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.
>>>
>>> Puffs of smoke may be fact - "sign of controlled demolition" is
>>> speculation. So your statement is not a fact. If puffs of smoke had
>>> not come out of the buildings immediately prior to collapse, then
>>> THAT would have been peculiar!
>>
>>
>> Watch the clips
>>
>> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
>>
>>
>> See the squibs here:
>>
>> http://st12.startlogic.com/
>> ~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
>
> 1) Explosions would be set to occur before or at the collapse - not
> after.
The WTC 7 squibs from the startlogic site above come a few miliseconds
after the collapse starts.
The squibs in the Towers come right below the sections that are collapsing.
And this continues in different sections (on different floors) as the
Towers collapse.
2) If the lower floors collapsed first, then the compressed air
> must escape somehow - windows would be expected to be blown out as the
> building collapses.
Jones proved that the air expulsion theory is discounted. Search his paper
for "expulsion":
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
> 3) If there was a conspiracy to blow up the building, it would have
> been easier to blow one side of the building - only an incompetent
> conspirator would go to the trouble of planting explosives in the
> upper floors _and_ arrange a symmetrical collapse. Needless hard work.
Yes. And the collapses of all three buildings mimick expert, perfect
controlled demolition.
WTC 7 had several government agencies, and a lot of ENRON documents. It is
theorized that that was one reason to completely destroy the building.
Please watch the video clips of WTC7 collapsing. The fact of controlled
demolition is more than obvious. Compare it to implosions at
www.implosionworld.com
>
>>>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on
>>>> the entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
>>>> happened to include terrorist attack insurance
>>>
>>> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
>>> needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
>>> how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
>>
>>
>> Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
>> before 9/11. Also, Bush's brother Marvin was one of the directors in
>> charge of WTC security.
>
> Um, doesn't lack of power make drilling harder? And just how does one
> person manage such a vast security breach? This is taking place in the
> center of an area that has one of the highest population densities on
> the planet. Don't you think that someone might have noticed something?
> How many people do you think live and work near there anyway???
What you said is all true. We will never know exactly how it was done.
>
>>>> FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's
>>>> insurance company told the Discovery Channel that the Towers'
>>>> massive vertical columns all failed simultaneously, and mimicked
>>>> controlled demolition
>>>
>>> Since a steel frame building collapsed in just the same manner in a
>>> Mexican earthquake, we now know that simultaneous collapse does not
>>> need human action.
>>>
>>
>> This is not true
>
> Explain why not.
That must have been the only steel framed building to ever completely
collapse from anything other than controlled demolition. Still, it did not
collapse from fire, and we don't know how long it took for that collapse to
occur. For all we know, it could have taken hours. And, although I admit
not being an expert, I would bet it could not really be classified as a
total collapse.
You're a physicist? Please take the time to read Jones' paper in it's
entirely. Also take the other information into consideration. If you're a
physicist, and you look at the real information, you should have problem
seeing it.
Frank F. Matthews
TRUTH wrote:
> "Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in
> news:x3aLf.30685$7y1....@tornado.texas.rr.com:
>
>
>>
>>TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jones does not need to be a building engineer. He's a physicist and
>>>is therefore qualified to determine if the government's version
>>>defies physics. And since his paper, and the 150 people in st911.org,
>>>use science, and not kooky proofless boxcutter nonsense, they can see
>>>that the WTC was taken down by controled demolitions. So can anyone
>>>else who looks at the information I posted.
>>
>>
>>Not really. He is lately an expert in Cold Fusion and Christ's visit
>>to America.
>>
>>His arguments are not particularly plausible or convincing.
> His arguments are based on scientific principles. They do not have to be
> convincing, since scientific laws cannot be changed, such as the Law of
> Increasing Entropy. Are you an engineer or physicist?
>
Mathematics but I have a pretty good background in Physics.
> How do explain THREE collapses at near free fall speed? First time in
> history from fire!
>
Two very large airplanes into buildings do have an effect.
> Where did the energy come from to pulvarize concrete and office furniture
> into particles of fine powder?
>
Lots of kinetic and thermal energy.
> Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?
>
> Why was there moltel metal and yellow-hot metal under the Towers (AND
> BUILDING 7) weeks after 9/11? (Those colors are consistant with thermite
> explosives.)
As I said lots of energy available.
> Also, why did the government hall away and destroy the evidence before it
> could be properly analyzed?
There was some interest in trying to clean up the area. Should they
have closed off a fair part of the island for a couple of years. As I
said the man is not an expert in anything that connects and his claims
are neither plausible or convincing.
Frank F. Matthews
TRUTH
Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not scientific. There
are dozens of things you are not taking into consideration.
If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should have no
problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not apply. Go read his
paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his statements. It's only
the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the scientific evidence
shows otherwise. Prove yourself to be normal. Take the time and go
through his paper. Here's the URL
RAK
OK, but that was certainly not clear to me from the first message from you
in a new topic/thread.
Not everyone follows the history of insults in the group - it would be more
than a full time job I fear!
I have read some of the stuff in your links, especially links to the
"straight" media. Lots of intersting stuff, but I still find it extremely
hard to believe that the govt could do something so complicated (and evil)
and manage to cover it up; so many people would be involved.
It would be interesting to read an unbiased, balanced and competent review
of the issues if there is one; most of what I see it very one-sided, one way
or the other, and too much is hysterically biased.
TRUTH
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:
You're now resorting to childish comments because you obviously know I'm
right.
TRUTH
Fine, prove it. Debunk his paper and explain WHY his evidence does not
apply. And be specific. No silly childish nonsense
TRUTH
news:spbLf.62814$sa3.17705@pd7tw1no:
You arrived in this thread late. Read my other posts and learn that
there is credible evidence.
TRUTH
>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>> "Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in
>> news:x3aLf.30685$7y1....@tornado.texas.rr.com:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>TRUTH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jones does not need to be a building engineer. He's a physicist and
>>>>is therefore qualified to determine if the government's version
>>>>defies physics. And since his paper, and the 150 people in
>>>>st911.org, use science, and not kooky proofless boxcutter nonsense,
>>>>they can see that the WTC was taken down by controled demolitions.
>>>>So can anyone else who looks at the information I posted.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not really. He is lately an expert in Cold Fusion and Christ's visit
>>>to America.
>>>
>>>His arguments are not particularly plausible or convincing.
>
>> His arguments are based on scientific principles. They do not have to
>> be convincing, since scientific laws cannot be changed, such as the
>> Law of Increasing Entropy. Are you an engineer or physicist?
>>
> Mathematics but I have a pretty good background in Physics.
Okay.
>
>> How do explain THREE collapses at near free fall speed? First time in
>> history from fire!
>>
>
> Two very large airplanes into buildings do have an effect.
And what about WTC 7?
>
>> Where did the energy come from to pulvarize concrete and office
>> furniture into particles of fine powder?
>>
> Lots of kinetic and thermal energy.
Where did that kinetic and thermal energy come from? Do you know of any
experiments performed that show that it could happen?
>> Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?
>>
>> Why was there moltel metal and yellow-hot metal under the Towers (AND
>> BUILDING 7) weeks after 9/11? (Those colors are consistant with
>> thermite explosives.)
>
> As I said lots of energy available.
See above
>> Also, why did the government hall away and destroy the evidence
>> before it could be properly analyzed?
>
> There was some interest in trying to clean up the area. Should they
> have closed off a fair part of the island for a couple of years. As I
> said the man is not an expert in anything that connects and his claims
> are neither plausible or convincing.
They evidence was hauled away and DESTROYED. Please explain this.
TRUTH
news:43fd529b$0$8056$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com:
Thank you for your comments! You are definitely interesting in learning
about this.
9/11 was for the purpose of building public support to invade Iraq and
afghanistan. The US government has been doing this for a long time.
Recently declassified tapes show that the US created terror in the Gulf of
Tonkin to build public support to invade Vietnam is one example.
bin Laden was trained and funded by the CIA in the 70s. Bush Sr gave WMD to
Saddam in the 80s.
There's interesting information here (the first link does not work though.)
In particular look at the Operation Northwoods and Bush/Nazi connection
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?p=24588#24588
Also see here:
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
Also some interesting articles:
How, exactly, is the "War on Terror" helping?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1512597,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html
Why Invade Afghanistan?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1840182.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm
Why invade Iraq?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3032147.stm
http://tinyurl.com/2kp45 (AMERICAN FREE PRESS)
http://tinyurl.com/da23y (ABC NEWS)
Bush 'plotted to lure Saddam into war with fake UN plane'
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article342859.ece
Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in secret memo
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html
Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says
http://tinyurl.com/c84fg (WASHINGTON POST)
Powell's former chief of staff on Iraq intel: 'I participated in a hoax'
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Powells_former_chief_of_staff_on_0205.html
TRUTH
handle the truth so it resorts to childish, unrelated, irrational
nonnsense! You're making an idiot out of yourselves!
Richard Lamb <cave...@Xearthlink.net> wrote in
news:AzbLf.2629$5M6...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
-hh
TRUTH wrote:
> Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How about reading the paper for yourself?
> >
> > I did. He's full of shit.
> >
> > And (here's the kicker) I really understand his claims, which you
> > don't.
>
> Fine, prove it.
Don't have to: that's what the Peer Review process does.
Since you've recanted your lie about the paper already being Peer
Reviewed, your credibility on the entire matter is zero.
But of course, what you're really after is to see how many responses
you can get to your troll in some period of time to win a bet at your
College Fraternity.
Bye-bye, pledge.
-hh
>
> Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or structural
> engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false
Jones claims that the presence of black smoke means the fire
temperatures could not have exceeded 650 C.
The presence of black smoke merely indicates that a low yield fire was
burning *somewhere*, but this is not evidence of its distribution or
homogeneity. In other words, it is not sufficient evidence that
demonstrates the complete absence of any other, possibly hotter, fires
anywhere. Since we know that more than one fire can exist with a
structure at a time and since the performance levels of these fires
aren't predicatedby the smoke presence of a low order fire, this
evidence does not exclude hotter fires, so Jone's baseline assumption
is invalid. Since fire temperature is a linchpin, his entire case
unravels.
Jone's error was a causality confusion of "absence of evidence" with
"evidence of absence". Interestingly, the last (in)famous physicists
who made this same logical error were Fleschman & Pons. One would have
expected that Jones, being also into Cold Fusion, would have been smart
enough to have learned from their mistake. Because he repeats the same
known causality error, he deserves nothing less than professional
contempt..
-hh
Dan
> Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote in
>
>
>>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on the
>>> entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just happened
>>> to include terrorist attack insurance
>> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
>> needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
>> how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
>
>
> Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend before
> 9/11.
Obviously you don't. Take a look at any major controlled demolition.
It takes weeks of preparation that includes removal of walls, windows
and structural members as well as making cuts in steel supports,
drilling of holes and cutting rebar in concrete members, installing
charges and det cord etc. Very little of which can be done without all
kinds of people noticing. How come no one noticed the debris being
hauled away before 9-11? Det cord is orange or bright red and about 3/8"
in diameter and no one noticed many hundreds of yards of this stuff
strung about? You keep referring to squibs, do you know what they are or
the difference between a squib and a shaped charge?
As for the "puffs of smoke" jetting out from windows below the
falling floors they would be from windows being blown out by air driven
by the mass of falling floors. Same with debris going horizontal.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dan
> His arguments are based on scientific principles. They do not have to be
> convincing,
Then forgive us for not being convinced.
since scientific laws cannot be changed, such as the Law of
> Increasing Entropy.
Entropy applies here how?
Are you an engineer or physicist?
>
> How do explain THREE collapses at near free fall speed? First time in
> history from fire!
There weren't any collapses at near free fall speed. They were
considerably slower.
>
> Where did the energy come from to pulvarize concrete and office furniture
> into particles of fine powder?
The mass of the floors above. The formula is F = MA. Look it up.
>
> Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?
Heat alone can do that. Metal DOES boil and become a gas at high
enough temperatures.
>
> Why was there moltel metal and yellow-hot metal under the Towers (AND
> BUILDING 7) weeks after 9/11? (Those colors are consistant with thermite
> explosives.)
Wrong again, I have used thermite and it burns white hot and not for
weeks. Thermite burns at too slow a rate to be used for demolition of
tall buildings. There were fires from broken gas lines. Yellow hot steel
is no where near "molten."
>
>
>
> Also, why did the government hall away and destroy the evidence before it
> could be properly analyzed?
I assume you mean "haul," now prove they did.
Dan
>
> Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not scientific. There
> are dozens of things you are not taking into consideration.
You keep using the word "scientific" without any apparent
understanding of its meaning. Why do you keep demanding "scientific
proof" when you don't even understand the science in Jones' paper? You
said so yourself.
>
>
> If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should have no
> problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not apply. Go read his
> paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his statements.
It's been done several times, but you don't understand it any more
than you understand Jones.
It's only
> the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the scientific evidence
> shows otherwise.
Jones is hardly "all the scientific evidence," he's just the one you
choose to believe. When someone provides an FE you say it's not
scientific. FEA is scientific in that the results are reproducible, fit
the known laws of science and have passed peer review. The fact you
don't understand FEA doesn't make it nonscientific.
Prove yourself to be normal. Take the time and go
> through his paper. Here's the URL
>
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
I have and I disagree with his findings. I won't explain why because
you won't understand, you will accuse me of being "unscientific" or
simply dismiss my responses out of hand.
Denny
TRUTH
news:1140680754....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
What a wimpy copout.
TRUTH
news:1140684186.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>> Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or structural
>> engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false
>
> Jones claims that the presence of black smoke means the fire
> temperatures could not have exceeded 650 C.
That is correct. btw, what is your expertise and education, may I ask.
>
> The presence of black smoke merely indicates that a low yield fire was
> burning *somewhere*, but this is not evidence of its distribution or
> homogeneity. In other words, it is not sufficient evidence that
> demonstrates the complete absence of any other, possibly hotter, fires
> anywhere. Since we know that more than one fire can exist with a
> structure at a time and since the performance levels of these fires
> aren't predicatedby the smoke presence of a low order fire, this
> evidence does not exclude hotter fires, so Jone's baseline assumption
> is invalid. Since fire temperature is a linchpin, his entire case
> unravels.
That is pure nonsense! One cannot say, "For the Towers to have collapsed
from fire, the fire must have been hotter somewhere. Therefore the fire
WAS hottter somewhere." Come on! Are you an engineer or physicist, btw?
Where is the proof of that hotter fire?
There is no evidence showing hotter fires in other areas. One cannot
simply assume that there was.
And if the fires were so hot, how were the firefighters able to get up to
the impact area without being incinerated?
Besides, where's the logical reasoning explaining how that fire got so
hot that it simultaneously severed 47 massive steel columns?? (That's 47
columns in each Tower.)
> Jone's error was a causality confusion of "absence of evidence" with
> "evidence of absence". Interestingly, the last (in)famous physicists
> who made this same logical error were Fleschman & Pons. One would have
> expected that Jones, being also into Cold Fusion, would have been smart
> enough to have learned from their mistake. Because he repeats the same
> known causality error, he deserves nothing less than professional
> contempt..
>
>
> -hh
Your statements are total nonsense. You didn't debunk any of the
evidence. Jones' statements about the fire is more suggestive evidence
that physical evidence . Besides, you're treating it lile it's all there
is. How about explaining the rest of that paper?
TRUTH
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> His arguments are based on scientific principles. They do not have to
>> be convincing,
>
> Then forgive us for not being convinced.
>
> since scientific laws cannot be changed, such as the Law of
>> Increasing Entropy.
>
> Entropy applies here how?
>
> Are you an engineer or physicist?
No. Are you?
>>
>> How do explain THREE collapses at near free fall speed? First time in
>> history from fire!
>
> There weren't any collapses at near free fall speed. They were
> considerably slower.
Wrong. Towers collapsed in 10 seconds maximum. Building 7 was about 7
seconds.
>>
>> Where did the energy come from to pulvarize concrete and office
>> furniture into particles of fine powder?
>
> The mass of the floors above. The formula is F = MA. Look it up.
Absurd and illogical. You cannot simply take a formula and plug the
information in and expect an accurate answer. There's millions of other
variables.
Buildings NEVER collapsed in that manner before, EXCEPT from controlled
demolitions.
>>
>> Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?
>
> Heat alone can do that. Metal DOES boil and become a gas at high
> enough temperatures.
Desiel fuel burns no where near hot enough to melt steel. So, I repeat:
Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?
>> Why was there moltel metal and yellow-hot metal under the Towers (AND
>> BUILDING 7) weeks after 9/11? (Those colors are consistant with
>> thermite explosives.)
>
> Wrong again, I have used thermite and it burns white hot and not
> for
> weeks. Thermite burns at too slow a rate to be used for demolition of
> tall buildings. There were fires from broken gas lines. Yellow hot
> steel is no where near "molten."
Forgive me, I gave the wrong color. (Jones paper gives the right
information though.) Perhaps you can explain where the energy came from
to cause steel (or iron) to get that hot.
>>
>>
>> Also, why did the government hall away and destroy the evidence
>> before it could be properly analyzed?
>
> I assume you mean "haul," now prove they did.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Oh, thank you for correcting my poor spelling.
Here's your proof:
BILL MANNING
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, FIRE ENGINEERING MAGAZINE:
"$elling Out The Investigation" article quotes: "Such destruction of
evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the
value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced
collapse in world history."
"Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully
resourced, forensic investigation is imperative"
"The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a
fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough
investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned."
full article: http://tinyurl.com/3h5mk
TRUTH
Yes it does take weeks. Bu that fact does not debunk the evidence.
Jones' refuted the "air-expulsion due to floors collapsing" theory of the
squibs. See his paper for the details.
Have you seen the squibs yourself? There are video clips at the bottom of
this page:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
TRUTH
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>>
>> Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not scientific. There
>> are dozens of things you are not taking into consideration.
>
> You keep using the word "scientific" without any apparent
> understanding of its meaning. Why do you keep demanding "scientific
> proof" when you don't even understand the science in Jones' paper? You
> said so yourself.
You are putting words in my mouth and twisting their meaning.
Please Stop.
>
>>
>>
>> If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should have no
>> problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not apply. Go read his
>> paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his statements.
>
> It's been done several times, but you don't understand it any more
> than you understand Jones.
It's been done? Where???? I know of no physicists or engineers who
debunked Jones' paper.
>
> It's only
>> the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the scientific
evidence
>> shows otherwise.
>
> Jones is hardly "all the scientific evidence," he's just the one you
> choose to believe. When someone provides an FE you say it's not
> scientific. FEA is scientific in that the results are reproducible, fit
> the known laws of science and have passed peer review. The fact you
> don't understand FEA doesn't make it nonscientific.
>
> Prove yourself to be normal. Take the time and go
>> through his paper. Here's the URL
>>
>> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>>
>
> I have and I disagree with his findings. I won't explain why because
> you won't understand, you will accuse me of being "unscientific" or
> simply dismiss my responses out of hand.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
That's your excuse for the fact that you can't debunk it.
Mike
>His arguments are based on scientific principles. They do not have to be
>convincing, since scientific laws cannot be changed, such as the Law of
>Increasing Entropy. Are you an engineer or physicist?
Yes, I am a structural engineer and registered PE.
>
>How do explain THREE collapses at near free fall speed? First time in
>history from fire!
It is called progressive collapse. This is when a smaller less
significant failure causes an overall greater failure.
>
>Where did the energy come from to pulvarize concrete and office furniture
>into particles of fine powder?
The concrete and other materials had a large amounts of potential
energy stored when they were raised to a higher elevation in the
building. BTW, you don't need to be an engineer to know this, you
need to have not slept through 6th grade science class.
>
>Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?
Steel doesn't evaporate. ASCE (an independent non-government
organization) determined from analysis that "The thinning of the steel
occurred by a high temperature corrosion due to a combination of
oxidation and sulfidation.
>
>Why was there moltel metal and yellow-hot metal under the Towers (AND
>BUILDING 7) weeks after 9/11? (Those colors are consistant with thermite
>explosives.)
Fire. BTW it can be consistant with many things.
>
>Also, why did the government hall away and destroy the evidence before it
>could be properly analyzed?
See above about ASCE analyzing the steel.
TRUTH
explained. So instead of people attacking ME, how about attacking the
information? You DARE say that *I* don't know what I'm talking about?
Matt Barrow
"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JPGdnVugpN7...@giganews.com...
>> people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
>> Video, or downloaded to your computer.
This crap wa debunked over a year ago (Popular Mechanics, amongst others)
and the psycho is still trowelling it out.
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
TRUTH
news:ahcrv19gb955itd1l...@4ax.com:
Mike, you are a registered PE structural engineer?
Sir, in your professional, expert, experienced opinion, what caused this 47
story steel framed building to collapse?
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
Also, note these "squibs" from the SW corner
http://st12.startlogic.com/
~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
Johnny Bravo
>Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds of
>people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
>events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed on Google
>Video, or downloaded to your computer.
God, again?
You had your ass handed to you a couple of month ago when you tried this shit
over on talk.politics.guns.
You must be a masochist.
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>> FACT: The WTC7 fire alarm was put into "test mode" the morning of 9/11
>>
>
>And this could of been standard issue or bad timing, happens every day.
Not to mention completely irrelevant. The sprinkler system for WTC-7 was fed
by a 20 inch water main under the street under the buildings. Falling debris
from the impacts of the airliners ruptured that main, there was no water
available in the building. The same ruptured main also prevented firefighters
from using city water to fight the fire and the NYFD had better things to do
that day than try to clear the streets enough to get trucks in there to fight a
fire that wasn't a clear danger to human life.
Dan
> Dan <B2...@aol.com> wrote in news:DlgLf.22321$Ug4.11952@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>> His arguments are based on scientific principles. They do not have to
>>> be convincing,
>> Then forgive us for not being convinced.
>>
>> since scientific laws cannot be changed, such as the Law of
>>> Increasing Entropy.
>> Entropy applies here how?
>>
>> Are you an engineer or physicist?
>
>
> No. Are you?
>
>
>
>>> How do explain THREE collapses at near free fall speed? First time in
>>> history from fire!
>> There weren't any collapses at near free fall speed. They were
>> considerably slower.
>
>
> Wrong. Towers collapsed in 10 seconds maximum. Building 7 was about 7
> seconds.
>
Do the math, the formula is D = 16T^2
>
>
>>> Where did the energy come from to pulvarize concrete and office
>>> furniture into particles of fine powder?
>> The mass of the floors above. The formula is F = MA. Look it up.
>
>
> Absurd and illogical. You cannot simply take a formula and plug the
> information in and expect an accurate answer.
That's precisely what formulae are for. I assume you took some math
and science in school. What do you think they were trying to teach you?
Actually using simple formulae is exactly how it's done. It's done
repeatedly or plugged into another formula or both. Calculus simplifies
this, computers make it even easier. No matter how big the equation is
it is made up of smaller parts that can be worked into or out of the
picture. You have repeatedly told us you have no science background so
don't tell us who do how it is done. What is "absurd and illogical" is
your insisting you know better when you also say you don't.
Did you know Ke (kinetic energy)= 1/2mv^2 is an application of F = ma?
>
> Buildings NEVER collapsed in that manner before, EXCEPT from controlled
> demolitions.
>
The 21 story Mexico City building did. No matter how many times you
try to ignore it it did collapse that way. I haven't looked at every
single building collapse in history, neither have you, so I can't say
there are other examples or not.
>
>
>>> Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?
>> Heat alone can do that. Metal DOES boil and become a gas at high
>> enough temperatures.
>
>
> Desiel fuel burns no where near hot enough to melt steel. So, I repeat:
> Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?
Jet fuel is NOT diesel. It is closer to kerosene. What keeps jet
engines from melting is selection of materials and bypass air. Jet fuel
CAN burn steel given enough oxygen and that's what happened. It is more
than apparent you don't know what "force" means since you don't use it
correctly here.
>
>
>
>
>>> Why was there moltel metal and yellow-hot metal under the Towers (AND
>>> BUILDING 7) weeks after 9/11? (Those colors are consistant with
>>> thermite explosives.)
>> Wrong again, I have used thermite and it burns white hot and not
>> for
>> weeks. Thermite burns at too slow a rate to be used for demolition of
>> tall buildings. There were fires from broken gas lines. Yellow hot
>> steel is no where near "molten."
>
>
> Forgive me, I gave the wrong color. (Jones paper gives the right
> information though.) Perhaps you can explain where the energy came from
> to cause steel (or iron) to get that hot.
I will say it again: there were fires from broken gas lines. Remember
how NYFD had to put them out before major excavation could begin?
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Also, why did the government hall away and destroy the evidence
>>> before it could be properly analyzed?
>> I assume you mean "haul," now prove they did.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
> Oh, thank you for correcting my poor spelling.
>
>
> Here's your proof:
>
>
> BILL MANNING
> EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, FIRE ENGINEERING MAGAZINE:
> "$elling Out The Investigation" article quotes: "Such destruction of
> evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the
> value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced
> collapse in world history."
>
> "Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully
> resourced, forensic investigation is imperative"
>
> "The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a
> fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough
> investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned."
>
> full article: http://tinyurl.com/3h5mk
The article you cite is flat out wrong as is your suggestion the
salvage was deliberately destroyed before being properly analyzed. The
salvage was taken to Fresh Kills where each piece was forensically
examined before a decision was made to release or not. There is not
enough space nor requirement to keep every piece so that which has no
probative value was sold off.
Dan
OK, then answer the rest of what I said. How come no one noticed the
removed walls, the debris being carted off, the exposed supports, the
hundreds of yards of det cord, the prepped structural members etc? At
the very least everyone who had access to the underground parking lots
would have noticed the precut supports.
>
> Jones' refuted the "air-expulsion due to floors collapsing" theory of the
> squibs. See his paper for the details.
I have and he doesn't know what he is talking about. Squibs are more
commonly used for special effects, ejection seats and small jobs like that.
>
> Have you seen the squibs yourself? There are video clips at the bottom of
> this page:
> http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
OK, save me the trouble of watching all the clips and tell me which
video shows these "squibs." I am having trouble visualizing how squibs
would be used in place of shaped charges and kickers.
TRUTH
Actually, no it's not. When there are unknowns, they must also be taken
into acount. In you believe otherwise, then your education is faulty.
>
> Did you know Ke (kinetic energy)= 1/2mv^2 is an application of F = ma?
>
>>
>> Buildings NEVER collapsed in that manner before, EXCEPT from
>> controlled demolitions.
>>
> The 21 story Mexico City building did. No matter how many times you
> try to ignore it it did collapse that way. I haven't looked at every
> single building collapse in history, neither have you, so I can't say
> there are other examples or not.
That building was no more than 3 stories tall. Anyone with eyes can see
that. That tiny building did NOT pulvarise to dust.
NO STEEL FRAMED HI RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPES FROM FIRE PERIOD!
YOU are the one ignoring the evidence. So stop projecting it onto me.
>>>> Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?
>>> Heat alone can do that. Metal DOES boil and become a gas at high
>>> enough temperatures.
>>
>>
>> Desiel fuel burns no where near hot enough to melt steel. So, I
>> repeat: Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?
>
> Jet fuel is NOT diesel. It is closer to kerosene. What keeps jet
> engines from melting is selection of materials and bypass air. Jet
> fuel CAN burn steel given enough oxygen and that's what happened. It
> is more than apparent you don't know what "force" means since you
> don't use it correctly here.
Instead of childishly insulting me, how about admitting that burning jet
fuel does not get hot enough to melt steel?
>>
>>
>>>> Why was there moltel metal and yellow-hot metal under the Towers
>>>> (AND BUILDING 7) weeks after 9/11? (Those colors are consistant
>>>> with thermite explosives.)
>>> Wrong again, I have used thermite and it burns white hot and not
>>> for
>>> weeks. Thermite burns at too slow a rate to be used for demolition
>>> of tall buildings. There were fires from broken gas lines. Yellow
>>> hot steel is no where near "molten."
>>
>>
>> Forgive me, I gave the wrong color. (Jones paper gives the right
>> information though.) Perhaps you can explain where the energy came
>> from to cause steel (or iron) to get that hot.
>
> I will say it again: there were fires from broken gas lines.
> Remember
> how NYFD had to put them out before major excavation could begin?
Okay, if that case, show me some information proving that gas fires can
get hot enough to melt steel.
Also, explain how the gas fires got hot enough to cause 47 steel columns
to simultaniously sever.
Oh really. Show me just one article from a reputable source verifying
that.
NOTE: Fire Engineering is not a "newsstand" magazine. It is a
professional trade journal, for fire houses. I could assure you, the
article is 100% correct.
Mike
>Those facta have no bearing on this at all.
>
>The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.
>
>The idea that the Towers could collapse at near free fall speed from fire
>is absurd.
>
Explain why. After the initial accelleration of the upper floors, the
forces applied on the lower floors would be much greater than they
were designed for. Thus, the lower portion of the building would
provide little resistance and allow for a quick collapse.
>How did the 47 MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS in the Towers severe? And HOW did
>they ALL severe at the SAME TIME?
>
>
Fact: A large number of the exterior columns were severed by the
impact.
Fact: Fire (heat) weakens steel even without the steel melting and
becoing fluid.
Fact: The columns did not all fail at the same time. The south
tower's top floors tilted proir to collapse. The north tower's
interior columns failed first. Several of the columns were severed by
the impact of the planes. The loads that were no longer being
supported by the severed columns were transferred to other columns.
Those columns were then weakened by fire. When the stress became too
great for the just one of the remianing columns, it failed. This
transferred more load to the remaining columns causing them to become
overstressed one by one in rapid succession. This caused the top
portion of the building to begin to drop onto the lower portion and
subsequently "pancake" the lower floors.
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>The people on the other end sure seemed to be convinced they were talking to
>their loved ones. Your "facts" are utter bullshit. How convenient that we
>have new voice synthesizer technology. The government is to incompetent to
>do anything close to this magnitude.
This being the same government that couldn't even break into a hotel room at
the Watergate hotel and keep it secret. Yet somehow they managed to fake
several hijackings, kill 3,000 people and sneak a hundred man ninja team armed
with tons of explosives into WTC-7 to perform a controlled demolition inside a
burning building in less than 7 hours without a single person blowing the lid
off.
And he thinks we're crazy?!?!?
Dan
> Dan <B2...@aol.com> wrote in news:CLgLf.22529$Ug4.21186@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>> Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not scientific. There
>>> are dozens of things you are not taking into consideration.
>> You keep using the word "scientific" without any apparent
>> understanding of its meaning. Why do you keep demanding "scientific
>> proof" when you don't even understand the science in Jones' paper? You
>> said so yourself.
>
>
>
> You are putting words in my mouth and twisting their meaning.
> Please Stop.
I didn't put anything in your mouth, YOU keep using the term
"scientific proof" and YOU said you don't understand the science in
Jones' paper. It's clear you have no idea what scientific proof is and
therefore nothing will ever convince you your conspiracy theory is full
of holes.
>
>
>>>
>>> If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should have no
>>> problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not apply. Go read his
>>> paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his statements.
>> It's been done several times, but you don't understand it any more
>> than you understand Jones.
>
>
> It's been done? Where???? I know of no physicists or engineers who
> debunked Jones' paper.
Several in this thread and others like rec.aviation.homebuilt have
debunked Jones' paper. You just choose to ignore that fact.
>
>
>
>
>> It's only
>>> the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the scientific
> evidence
>>> shows otherwise.
>> Jones is hardly "all the scientific evidence," he's just the one you
>> choose to believe. When someone provides an FE you say it's not
>> scientific. FEA is scientific in that the results are reproducible, fit
>> the known laws of science and have passed peer review. The fact you
>> don't understand FEA doesn't make it nonscientific.
>>
>> Prove yourself to be normal. Take the time and go
>>> through his paper. Here's the URL
>>>
>>> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>>>
>> I have and I disagree with his findings. I won't explain why because
>> you won't understand, you will accuse me of being "unscientific" or
>> simply dismiss my responses out of hand.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
> That's your excuse for the fact that you can't debunk it.
I don't have to. Several people with engineering degrees in the
various groups you have spewed your theories into have done exactly
that. Go back and reread. I said I wouldn't because you wouldn't
understand or you'd accuse me of being unscientific because that is
exactly what happened when the engineering types tried to explain things
to you.
TRUTH
I have no idea. Any idea would be pure speculation, and would not prove
anything.
>>
>> Jones' refuted the "air-expulsion due to floors collapsing" theory of
>> the squibs. See his paper for the details.
>
> I have and he doesn't know what he is talking about. Squibs are
> more
> commonly used for special effects, ejection seats and small jobs like
> that.
You might not understand what he means by squibs. Squibs are the puffs of
smoke caused by the controlled charges. Take a look at the videos on
www.implosionworld.com and compare them.
>>
>> Have you seen the squibs yourself? There are video clips at the
>> bottom of this page:
>> http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
>
> OK, save me the trouble of watching all the clips and tell me which
> video shows these "squibs." I am having trouble visualizing how squibs
> would be used in place of shaped charges and kickers.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
Okay...
WTC 7 (NOT hit by an airplane):
http://tinyurl.com/eygeh
North Tower Squibs:
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-dets-1-marked.avi
South Tower Squibs:
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc2-dets-1-marked.avi
Johnny Bravo
>>>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on
>>>> the entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
>>>> happened to include terrorist attack insurance
>>>
>>> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
>>> needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
>>> how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
>>
>>
>> Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
>> before 9/11. Also, Bush's brother Marvin was one of the directors in
>> charge of WTC security.
>
>Um, doesn't lack of power make drilling harder? And just how does one
>person manage such a vast security breach? This is taking place in the
>center of an area that has one of the highest population densities on the
>planet. Don't you think that someone might have noticed something? How many
>people do you think live and work near there anyway???
There is a couple of massive flaws in the WTC-7 preset demolition theory.
1) Why bother blowing up WTC-7 at all? Do they honestly expect us to believe
that the government actually sat down and said at a meeting "You know, taking
out one of America's most prominent landmarks and killing 3,000 people just
won't be enough to enrage the public. But I've got a plan, we'll also blow up
WTC-7, an empty building that 99.999% of the people in the country never even
heard of to ensure the outrage we need."
2) Why set up a building to be demolished if no plane is going to hit it? There
is no way that they knew in advance that large pieces of debris would hit WTC-7
and start a fire that burned uncontrolled for half a day. What would have been
the explanation if the building was blown up and it hadn't suffered any
significant damage? None of the surrounding buildings was blown up after
suffering no significant damage and none of them were found with tons of preset
explosives.
The only possible logical explanation would be that WTC-7 was set for
demoltion that very day, after the planes hit. Hundreds of highly trained
demolitons specialists snuck tons of explosives into a smoke filled burning
building and executed a controlled demolition in 7 hours, in the midst of one of
the most intensive disaster recovery procedures ever mounted in the US. Not
only did they manage this incredible feat completely undetected, not one of the
hundreds of people involved ever talked about it. And this was done for
absolutely no reason at all, see #1 above.
TRUTH
> TRUTH wrote:
>> Dan <B2...@aol.com> wrote in news:CLgLf.22529$Ug4.21186@dukeread12:
>>
>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>
>>>> Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not scientific.
>>>> There are dozens of things you are not taking into consideration.
>>> You keep using the word "scientific" without any apparent
>>> understanding of its meaning. Why do you keep demanding "scientific
>>> proof" when you don't even understand the science in Jones' paper?
>>> You said so yourself.
>>
>>
>>
>> You are putting words in my mouth and twisting their meaning.
>> Please Stop.
>
> I didn't put anything in your mouth, YOU keep using the term
> "scientific proof" and YOU said you don't understand the science in
> Jones' paper. It's clear you have no idea what scientific proof is and
> therefore nothing will ever convince you your conspiracy theory is
> full of holes.
Give me a few specfic examples. Where exactly are the holes?
>>>>
>>>> If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should have
>>>> no problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not apply. Go read
>>>> his paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his statements.
>>> It's been done several times, but you don't understand it any
>>> more
>>> than you understand Jones.
>>
>>
>> It's been done? Where???? I know of no physicists or engineers who
>> debunked Jones' paper.
>
> Several in this thread and others like rec.aviation.homebuilt have
> debunked Jones' paper. You just choose to ignore that fact.
Do me the favor and point me to the thread.
Yeah? Where? Show me.
TRUTH
news:q4grv15sk5r8dlkgd...@4ax.com:
..................
Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and Co Author of “Why Buildings Fall
Down”
Levy has stated in the past that fire brought down the WTC buildings on
9/11. But it is interesting that he also made a public statement saying
the WTC collapses resembled controlled demolition. (Matthys Levy was/is a
representative for Weidlinger Associates; a company hired by WTC
leaseholder Larry Silverstein to help prove to his insurers that the
failures of the Towers were the result of two separate terrorist attacks,
and therefore allow Silverstein to double his insurance payout.)
"It was the fire ... causing the failure of the steel columns and that
caused the collapse"
http://wcbs880.com/topstories/topstoriesny_story_113150328.html
"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a
building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they
cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly
what it looked like and that's what happened."
Video: www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html
..................
Mike, PLEASE give me your professional opinion on WTC 7. Be sure to watch
all the video clips here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://tinyurl.com/eygeh
Johnny Bravo
>Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding are
>based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.
Why do Jones' dozens of supporters count for more than the thousands of people
who think he's full of shit, incluing his own boss at BYU and the entire BYU
Civil Engineering department?
Dan
No squibs or other explosive devices are shown.
TRUTH
TRUTH
> TRUTH wrote:
The links above were not meant for you. I pasted your linked in the other
post where you asked me to do you the favor of doing so
mrtravel
> Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in news:cirby-8CA32E.22050922022006
> @news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:
>
>
>
>>Meanwhile, actual building demolition experts say people like this are
>>full of shit.
>>
>
>
>
> Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or structural
> engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false
I gotta agree there.
I doubt they even know, or care, who he is.