Re: Physics Professor's Peer Reviewed Paper on WTC CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS on 9/11

5 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Darkwing

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 8:07:47 PM2/22/06
to

"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


Message has been deleted

TRUTH

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 8:06:53 PM2/22/06
to
Info on Dr Steven Jones seminars:
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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 8:14:50 PM2/22/06
to
"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 8:38:06 PM2/22/06
to
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:

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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 8:48:35 PM2/22/06
to
Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote in
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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 8:48:51 PM2/22/06
to
In article <Xns9772CA5...@130.81.64.196>,
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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 8:54:42 PM2/22/06
to
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.

Darkwing

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 8:58:19 PM2/22/06
to

"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9772CE8...@130.81.64.196...


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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 8:59:25 PM2/22/06
to

"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


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

khobar

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:10:05 PM2/22/06
to

"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.

Wow...dozens of supporters.

I'm convinced.

Paul Nixon


TRUTH

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:10:29 PM2/22/06
to
"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2oqdndfqILGSi2De...@giganews.com:


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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:11:51 PM2/22/06
to
TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed.

By what journal?

TRUTH

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:15:21 PM2/22/06
to
"khobar" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:9P8Lf.4247$Sp2.1482@fed1read02:

Explain these facts:

Message has been deleted

Jim Logajan

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:24:25 PM2/22/06
to
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.

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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:34:00 PM2/22/06
to

"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9772D7F...@130.81.64.196...

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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:32:09 PM2/22/06
to
Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote in
news:Xns9772BB4749AD...@216.168.3.30:


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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:35:16 PM2/22/06
to

"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9772D92...@130.81.64.196...

> 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.
> 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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:36:52 PM2/22/06
to

"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9772D70...@130.81.64.196...

> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:sq2dnYcOIun...@giganews.com:
> 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


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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:37:29 PM2/22/06
to

"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9772D8C...@130.81.64.196...


I did.

----------------------------------------------
DW


Message has been deleted

Jim Logajan

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:51:41 PM2/22/06
to
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!

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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:51:36 PM2/22/06
to

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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:52:13 PM2/22/06
to
"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
news:d-WdndHyaso3g2De...@giganews.com:

Okay, so I make a little mistake and since you're so closed minded, you
think that negates all the scientific facts. LOL

cjcampbell

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:57:56 PM2/22/06
to

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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 9:59:35 PM2/22/06
to
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.

"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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:02:05 PM2/22/06
to
In article <Xns9772DEC...@130.81.64.196>,
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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:06:16 PM2/22/06
to
Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote in
news:Xns9772BFE6DBC1...@216.168.3.30:

> 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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:06:46 PM2/22/06
to
In article <Xns9772D43...@130.81.64.196>,
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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:07:32 PM2/22/06
to
In article <Xns9772D92...@130.81.64.196>,
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.

Message has been deleted

Matt Whiting

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:12:46 PM2/22/06
to
TRUTH wrote:

> 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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:13:45 PM2/22/06
to
In article <Xns9772D70...@130.81.64.196>,
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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:15:13 PM2/22/06
to
Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in news:cirby-195812.22014022022006
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:

WTC7 collapsed in classic controlled demolition style.

Message has been deleted

TRUTH

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:22:27 PM2/22/06
to
Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote in
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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:10:52 PM2/22/06
to
In article <Xns9772DF0...@130.81.64.196>,
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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:32:49 PM2/22/06
to
You should mention that he is primarily an expert in Cold Fusion &
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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:33:12 PM2/22/06
to
Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in news:cirby-82BB57.22102722022006
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:

How about reading the paper for yourself?

Frank F. Matthews

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:34:53 PM2/22/06
to

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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:36:03 PM2/22/06
to
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.

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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:48:20 PM2/22/06
to
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in
news:x3aLf.30685$7y1....@tornado.texas.rr.com:

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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:59:28 PM2/22/06
to

"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9772CA5...@130.81.64.196...
..............

>
> 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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 10:05:34 PM2/22/06
to
In article <Xns9772D54...@130.81.64.196>,
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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 11:10:04 PM2/22/06
to
"RAK" <rak...@XYZgmail.com> wrote in
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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 11:12:19 PM2/22/06
to
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

Jim Logajan

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 11:38:37 PM2/22/06
to
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'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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 11:47:23 PM2/22/06
to
TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 11:52:39 PM2/22/06
to
In article <Xns9772E42...@130.81.64.196>,
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

unread,
Feb 23, 2006, 12:06:32 AM2/23/06
to

"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".

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

unread,
Feb 23, 2006, 12:16:27 AM2/23/06
to
In article <Xns9772E2E...@130.81.64.196>,
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

unread,
Feb 23, 2006, 12:17:20 AM2/23/06
to
Orval Fairbairn wrote:

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

unread,
Feb 23, 2006, 12:13:21 AM2/23/06
to
In article <Xns9772E5F...@130.81.64.196>,
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

unread,
Feb 23, 2006, 12:45:38 AM2/23/06
to
Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote in
news:Xns9772D20872C6...@216.168.3.30:

> 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

unread,
Feb 23, 2006, 12:47:50 AM2/23/06
to

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

unread,
Feb 23, 2006, 12:52:44 AM2/23/06
to
Well they do connect to the question of his credibility.

TRUTH

unread,
Feb 23, 2006, 12:54:34 AM2/23/06
to
Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:orfairbairn-
55DD21.235...@news.east.earthlink.net:

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

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

RAK

unread,
Feb 23, 2006, 1:09:46 AM2/23/06
to

"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9772EC3...@130.81.64.196...

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

unread,
Feb 23, 2006, 1:16:47 AM2/23/06
to
Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in news:cirby-A53043.00160223022006
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:


You're now resorting to childish comments because you obviously know I'm
right.

TRUTH

unread,
Feb 23, 2006, 1:18:04 AM2/23/06
to
Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
news:cirby-90942B....@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:

Fine, prove it. Debunk his paper and explain WHY his evidence does not
apply. And be specific. No silly childish nonsense

TRUTH

unread,
Feb 23, 2006, 1:20:42 AM2/23/06
to
"tim gueguen" <tgue...@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:spbLf.62814$sa3.17705@pd7tw1no:


You arrived in this thread late. Read my other posts and learn that
there is credible evidence.

TRUTH

unread,
Feb 23, 2006, 1:25:39 AM2/23/06
to
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in
news:a0cLf.30694$7y1....@tornado.texas.rr.com:

>
>
> 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

unread,
Feb 23, 2006, 2:00:11 AM2/23/06
to
"RAK" <rak...@XYZgmail.com> wrote in
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.