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

[Jim Logajan]

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:

1) It was NOT peer reviewed.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]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> 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:
>
> 1) It was NOT peer reviewed.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%20figur
> es.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.
>



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.

[TRUTH]

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.

[Jim Logajan]

TRUTH > wrote:
> Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed.

By what journal?

[Jim Logajan]

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.

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.

[TRUTH]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>


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
despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers.

[Darkwing]

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
>> TRUTH > 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 **** in our nice little news
group where we talk about small little airplanes.

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

[TRUTH]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
:

>
> "TRUTH" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> TRUTH > 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 **** in our nice
> little news group where we talk about small little airplanes.
>
> --------------------------------------------
> DW
>
>
>



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 > 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]

TRUTH > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
>> TRUTH > 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]

In article >,
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.

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 ****.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > 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]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
> > TRUTH > 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.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > 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)?

[Matt Whiting]

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

[TRUTH]

Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-82BB57.22102722022006
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > 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)?
>



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]

"Frank F. Matthews" > wrote in
:

>
>
> 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?

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?

[TRUTH]

Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-8CA32E.22050922022006
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:


>
> Meanwhile, actual building demolition experts say people like this are
> full of ****.
>


Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or structural
engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false

[Jim Logajan]

TRUTH > 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.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-82BB57.22102722022006
> @news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> > In article >,
> > TRUTH > 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)?
>
> How about reading the paper for yourself?

I did. He's full of ****.

And (here's the kicker) I really understand his claims, which you don't.

[Frank F. Matthews]

TRUTH wrote:
> "Frank F. Matthews" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>
>>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.

[TRUTH]

Chad Irby > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby > wrote in
>> news:cirby-82BB57.22102722022006 @news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > TRUTH > 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)?
>>
>> How about reading the paper for yourself?
>
> I did. He's full of ****.
>
> And (here's the kicker) I really understand his claims, which you
> don't.



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

[TRUTH]

"Frank F. Matthews" > wrote in
:

>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>> "Frank F. Matthews" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>
>>>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.

[-hh]

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.

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]

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?
>
> 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, U.S. Air Force, retired

[TRUTH]

"-hh" > wrote in
ups.com:

>
> TRUTH wrote:
>> Chad Irby > wrote:
>> > TRUTH > wrote:
>> >
>> >> How about reading the paper for yourself?
>> >
>> > I did. He's full of ****.
>> >
>> > 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.
>
>



What a wimpy copout.

[TRUTH]

"-hh" > wrote in
oups.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]

Dan > 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.



>>
>> 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

[Mike]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:20 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:


>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]

Mike > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:20 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>


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

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > 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?
>
Evasion noted.

>
>
>>> 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, U.S. Air Force, retired

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:IpjLf.23563$Ug4.13024@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> Dan > 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?
>>
> Evasion noted.
>
>>
>>
>>>> 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.



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.



>>>>
>>>> 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, U.S. Air Force, retired
>


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.

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Mike > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:20 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
> 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
>

No squibs or other explosive devices are shown.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:RbkLf.23571$Ug4.14981@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> Mike > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:20 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> No squibs or other explosive devices are shown.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>



Go visit an eye doctor

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:RbkLf.23571$Ug4.14981@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> Mike > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:20 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> No squibs or other explosive devices are shown.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>



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]

TRUTH wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-8CA32E.22050922022006
> @news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:
>
>
>
>>Meanwhile, actual building demolition experts say people like this are
>>full of ****.
>>
>
>
>
> 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.

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:IpjLf.23563$Ug4.13024@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in news:DlgLf.22321$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?
>>>
>> Evasion noted.
>>
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.


What do you think equations are for? Of course they are to solve for
unknowns. I never said otherwise. Apparently you are as weak on
communication as you are on science and math.

>
>
>
>
>> 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.

It was 21 stories before collapse.

Anyone with eyes can see
> that. That tiny building did NOT pulvarise to dust.

Neither did WTC.

>
> NO STEEL FRAMED HI RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPES FROM FIRE PERIOD!

Prove it.
>
> YOU are the one ignoring the evidence. So stop projecting it onto me.
>

No, you are altering the test here. You never specified collapse due
to fire until now.

>
>
>
>
>>>>> 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?

I might have had it been true. Besides, I have seen jet fuel/oxygen
burn through steel. It's all a mater of how it's burned. Let me try an
analogy you might be able to understand: a Coleman™ stove. If you pour
the fuel on the ground and light it you get a relatively cool flame. Now
run it through your stove. The gas generator is heated by the burner.
The gas generator turns the liquid fuel into a gas. The gas form burns
much hotter than the liquid form. The same was true at WTC, initially
the fire was relatively cool until it started sucking air in from
outside at a high rate, imagine a chimney effect, giving the fire a
higher oxygen burn rate. This is essentially a variation of how a jet
engine works. The exhaust gas temperatures are much higher than simple
burning liquid jet fuel. Now imagine another analogy: a kerosene lamp.
When you light the wick you get a low, dim flame. Put the chimney back
and the air around the flame heats up. This sucks in more air at a
higher rate than before which makes the flame burn hotter and brighter.

Now the same jet fuel that can burn hot enough to melt steel can also
burn cool enough to use in a cigarette lighter. Now you know where I
used to get free lighter fluid many moons ago when I smoked.

>>>
>>>>> 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.

See above. Besides have you ever heard of oxygen/acetylene welding?
It melts steel. Acetylene is a hydrocarbon fairly close to natural gas
in energy. Know what the difference between an oxygen/acetylene welding
torch and an oxygen/acetylene cutting torch is? Without going into
detail the cutting torch burns more efficiently generating a higher
temperature which cuts the steel by vapourising it.
>
> Also, explain how the gas fires got hot enough to cause 47 steel columns
> to simultaniously sever.

I never said it did. You asked about the hot steel AFTER the
collapse, remember? See above.
>
>
>
>>>>> 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, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
> Oh really. Show me just one article from a reputable source verifying
> that.

Just as soon as you start citing reputable sources for your claims.
>
> 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.

Then your assurance would be wrong. You also assured us Jones' paper
was peer reviewed so your assurances mean nothing to me. I used to be a
gunsmith and I found errors in trade journals.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:6DkLf.23572$Ug4.8179@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:IpjLf.23563$Ug4.13024@dukeread12:
>>
>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>> Dan > wrote in news:DlgLf.22321$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?
>>>>
>>> Evasion noted.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> What do you think equations are for? Of course they are to solve
> for
> unknowns. I never said otherwise. Apparently you are as weak on
> communication as you are on science and math.


You call me weak? You're the one using not looking at all the data




>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> It was 21 stories before collapse.
>
> Anyone with eyes can see
>> that. That tiny building did NOT pulvarise to dust.
>
> Neither did WTC.
>
>>
>> NO STEEL FRAMED HI RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPES FROM FIRE PERIOD!
>
> Prove it.



When I find the link, I will provide it. (Despite the fact that you
haven't provided ANY evidence of your own, other than the Mexico Ciy
collapse that was not caused by fire.)



>>
>> YOU are the one ignoring the evidence. So stop projecting it onto me.
>>
>
> No, you are altering the test here. You never specified collapse
> due
> to fire until now.



Take a look at the "FACTS" post that I posted a number of times. Fire has
NEVER caused a steel framed building to completely collapse. And
definitely not straight down, at near free fall speed, with accompanying
squibs and all!



>>
>>>>>> 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?
>
> I might have had it been true. Besides, I have seen jet fuel/oxygen
> burn through steel. It's all a mater of how it's burned. Let me try an
> analogy you might be able to understand: a Coleman™ stove. If you pour
> the fuel on the ground and light it you get a relatively cool flame.
> Now run it through your stove. The gas generator is heated by the
> burner. The gas generator turns the liquid fuel into a gas. The gas
> form burns much hotter than the liquid form. The same was true at WTC,
> initially the fire was relatively cool until it started sucking air in
> from outside at a high rate, imagine a chimney effect, giving the fire
> a higher oxygen burn rate. This is essentially a variation of how a
> jet engine works. The exhaust gas temperatures are much higher than
> simple burning liquid jet fuel. Now imagine another analogy: a
> kerosene lamp. When you light the wick you get a low, dim flame. Put
> the chimney back and the air around the flame heats up. This sucks in
> more air at a higher rate than before which makes the flame burn
> hotter and brighter.
>
> Now the same jet fuel that can burn hot enough to melt steel can
> also
> burn cool enough to use in a cigarette lighter. Now you know where I
> used to get free lighter fluid many moons ago when I smoked.


Please provide a link where all that information can be verified by a
physicist, or similar expert. You might know about NORAD, but your USAF
background does not cover steel melting fires. Sorry.



>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> See above. Besides have you ever heard of oxygen/acetylene welding?
> It melts steel. Acetylene is a hydrocarbon fairly close to natural gas
> in energy. Know what the difference between an oxygen/acetylene
> welding torch and an oxygen/acetylene cutting torch is? Without going
> into detail the cutting torch burns more efficiently generating a
> higher temperature which cuts the steel by vapourising it.


How exactly does all this apply to the WTC?



>>
>> Also, explain how the gas fires got hot enough to cause 47 steel
>> columns to simultaniously sever.
>
> I never said it did. You asked about the hot steel AFTER the
> collapse, remember? See above.



I asked you numerous times how the 47 massive steel columns got severed.
In addition, how they got severed simultaneuosly, in both towers. I am
still waiting for that answer.





>>
>>>>>> 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, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh really. Show me just one article from a reputable source verifying
>> that.
>
> Just as soon as you start citing reputable sources for your claims.


If you don't consider Fire Engineering a reputable source, then your
thinking is not clear and there's nothing more I can do for you. Sorry




>>
>> 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.
>
> Then your assurance would be wrong. You also assured us Jones'
> paper
> was peer reviewed so your assurances mean nothing to me. I used to be
> a gunsmith and I found errors in trade journals.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:RbkLf.23571$Ug4.14981@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Mike > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:20 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> No squibs or other explosive devices are shown.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
> Go visit an eye doctor

I suggest the same for you. What is shown is horizontal puffs of
smoke below the falling floors. They are puffs of smoke, not squibs.
Squibs and explosive devices are solid devices that explode when
triggered not puffs of smoke.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:RbkLf.23571$Ug4.14981@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Mike > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:20 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> No squibs or other explosive devices are shown.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
> 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

Oh, I wasn't supposed to look?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:2_kLf.23575$Ug4.17626@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:RbkLf.23571$Ug4.14981@dukeread12:
>>
>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>> Mike > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:20 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> No squibs or other explosive devices are shown.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Go visit an eye doctor
>
> I suggest the same for you. What is shown is horizontal puffs of
> smoke below the falling floors. They are puffs of smoke, not squibs.
> Squibs and explosive devices are solid devices that explode when
> triggered not puffs of smoke.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>



You're the first person I've heard to say that. Either way, that doesn't
negate the info

[Mike]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:45:29 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>Mike > wrote in
:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:20 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>
>
>Mike, you are a registered PE structural engineer?

To technically answer your question, I am a Registered Professional
Engineer in the State of Florida proficient in building structural
design.

>
>
>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
>
Note that the building was constructed over an existing electrical
substation. This resulted in numerous transfer beams and columns that
are critical to the overall stability of the structure. When the
fires started in the building and were fueled by the numerous fuel
storage tanks in the lower portion of the building, these critical
columns were weakened. At some point in time, a column failed, the
loads were then carried by other (fire weakened) columns until the
next columnn failed and so on. The fire was burning for hours. Once
the first column fails, the others fail in quick succession. Note
that the east mechanical penthouse disappears first, then 5 seconds
later, the west mechanical penthouse collapses into the building, and
about 3 seconds later, the entire building begins to collapse. Note
that it buckles inward and begins to drop first at the location
between the 2 penthouses. It is a classic progressive collapse.
>
>Also, note these "squibs" from the SW corner
>http://st12.startlogic.com/
>~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
>
>

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:6DkLf.23572$Ug4.8179@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in news:IpjLf.23563$Ug4.13024@dukeread12:
>>>
>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>> Dan > 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?
>>>>>
>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> What do you think equations are for? Of course they are to solve
>> for
>> unknowns. I never said otherwise. Apparently you are as weak on
>> communication as you are on science and math.
>
>
> You call me weak? You're the one using not looking at all the data
>
>
Stop being so sensitive, lots of people are poor communicators and
don't understand logic, math or science.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>> It was 21 stories before collapse.
>>
>> Anyone with eyes can see
>>> that. That tiny building did NOT pulvarise to dust.
>> Neither did WTC.
>>
>>> NO STEEL FRAMED HI RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPES FROM FIRE PERIOD!
>> Prove it.
>
>
>
> When I find the link, I will provide it. (Despite the fact that you
> haven't provided ANY evidence of your own, other than the Mexico Ciy
> collapse that was not caused by fire.)
>
>
>
>>> YOU are the one ignoring the evidence. So stop projecting it onto me.
>>>
>> No, you are altering the test here. You never specified collapse
>> due
>> to fire until now.
>
>
>
> Take a look at the "FACTS" post that I posted a number of times. Fire has
> NEVER caused a steel framed building to completely collapse. And
> definitely not straight down, at near free fall speed, with accompanying
> squibs and all!
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>> I might have had it been true. Besides, I have seen jet fuel/oxygen
>> burn through steel. It's all a mater of how it's burned. Let me try an
>> analogy you might be able to understand: a Coleman™ stove. If you pour
>> the fuel on the ground and light it you get a relatively cool flame.
>> Now run it through your stove. The gas generator is heated by the
>> burner. The gas generator turns the liquid fuel into a gas. The gas
>> form burns much hotter than the liquid form. The same was true at WTC,
>> initially the fire was relatively cool until it started sucking air in
>> from outside at a high rate, imagine a chimney effect, giving the fire
>> a higher oxygen burn rate. This is essentially a variation of how a
>> jet engine works. The exhaust gas temperatures are much higher than
>> simple burning liquid jet fuel. Now imagine another analogy: a
>> kerosene lamp. When you light the wick you get a low, dim flame. Put
>> the chimney back and the air around the flame heats up. This sucks in
>> more air at a higher rate than before which makes the flame burn
>> hotter and brighter.
>>
>> Now the same jet fuel that can burn hot enough to melt steel can
>> also
>> burn cool enough to use in a cigarette lighter. Now you know where I
>> used to get free lighter fluid many moons ago when I smoked.
>
>
> Please provide a link where all that information can be verified by a
> physicist, or similar expert. You might know about NORAD, but your USAF
> background does not cover steel melting fires. Sorry.
>
>
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>> See above. Besides have you ever heard of oxygen/acetylene welding?
>> It melts steel. Acetylene is a hydrocarbon fairly close to natural gas
>> in energy. Know what the difference between an oxygen/acetylene
>> welding torch and an oxygen/acetylene cutting torch is? Without going
>> into detail the cutting torch burns more efficiently generating a
>> higher temperature which cuts the steel by vapourising it.
>
>
> How exactly does all this apply to the WTC?

I answered your question how jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt
steel. Please try to stay focused.

>
>
>
>>> Also, explain how the gas fires got hot enough to cause 47 steel
>>> columns to simultaniously sever.
>> I never said it did. You asked about the hot steel AFTER the
>> collapse, remember? See above.
>
>
>
> I asked you numerous times how the 47 massive steel columns got severed.
> In addition, how they got severed simultaneuosly, in both towers. I am
> still waiting for that answer.

OK, try this on for size: they didn't. They didn't need to to cause
the collapse as it happened.
>
>
>>>>>>> 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, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh really. Show me just one article from a reputable source verifying
>>> that.
>> Just as soon as you start citing reputable sources for your claims.
>
>
> If you don't consider Fire Engineering a reputable source, then your
> thinking is not clear and there's nothing more I can do for you. Sorry

I never said it wasn't. I just said the article was wrong. You have
yet to provide reputable sources for any of your other claims.

>
>
>
>
>>> 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.
>> Then your assurance would be wrong. You also assured us Jones'
>> paper
>> was peer reviewed so your assurances mean nothing to me. I used to be
>> a gunsmith and I found errors in trade journals.
>>
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:2_kLf.23575$Ug4.17626@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in news:RbkLf.23571$Ug4.14981@dukeread12:
>>>
>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>> Mike > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:20 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> No squibs or other explosive devices are shown.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Go visit an eye doctor
>> I suggest the same for you. What is shown is horizontal puffs of
>> smoke below the falling floors. They are puffs of smoke, not squibs.
>> Squibs and explosive devices are solid devices that explode when
>> triggered not puffs of smoke.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
> You're the first person I've heard to say that. Either way, that doesn't
> negate the info

Sure it does. Saying the puffs of smoke prove an explosive device
went off is like saying mushroom clouds prove an atomic device was
exploded. I have seen puffs of smoke generated many ways and I have seen
huge mushroom clouds generated by non atomic methods. I have also seen
squibs fired with no visible smoke.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[TRUTH]

Mike > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:45:29 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>
>>Mike > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:20 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Mike, you are a registered PE structural engineer?
>
> To technically answer your question, I am a Registered Professional
> Engineer in the State of Florida proficient in building structural
> design.
>
>>
>>
>>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
>>
> Note that the building was constructed over an existing electrical
> substation. This resulted in numerous transfer beams and columns that
> are critical to the overall stability of the structure. When the
> fires started in the building and were fueled by the numerous fuel
> storage tanks in the lower portion of the building, these critical
> columns were weakened. At some point in time, a column failed, the
> loads were then carried by other (fire weakened) columns until the
> next columnn failed and so on. The fire was burning for hours. Once
> the first column fails, the others fail in quick succession. Note
> that the east mechanical penthouse disappears first, then 5 seconds
> later, the west mechanical penthouse collapses into the building, and
> about 3 seconds later, the entire building begins to collapse. Note
> that it buckles inward and begins to drop first at the location
> between the 2 penthouses. It is a classic progressive collapse.
>>
>>Also, note these "squibs" from the SW corner
>>http://st12.startlogic.com/
>>~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
>>
>>
>
>



So, what you're saying is that never before in world history has a steel
framed skyscraper completely collapsed from fire, but on 9/11 it happened
three times? And all three just happened to resemble controlled
demolitions? Including near free fall, squibs, fine powder, etc?


How could this happen on 9/11 three times, and never before or after 9/11?

Why did NIST change the data for their computer simulations?

Why did they not analyse the structural behavior of the buildings after the
onset of collapse inituation?

Why did they make the claim that collapse initiation would "inevitably"
lead to global collapse, when it never happened before in history?

How could it be from fire when they resemble controlled demolitions?

What about the FDNY statements about flashes and explosions that they said
they thought were controlled demolition?

How could burning jet fuel simultaneously sever 47 massive support columns
in each of the Towers? If the fire was that hot, shouldn't it have
incinerated all human beings in the area? (There were living people up
there.)


Please take a look at Dr Jones' paper and try to explain the 17 arguments
he makes. If you're a registered PE, you should have no trouble. I would
really appreciate it. Thanks...

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

[Frank F. Matthews]

TRUTH wrote:

> "Frank F. Matthews" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>
>>TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>>"Frank F. Matthews" > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>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?
>
>
>

Thermal energy comes from fires. The kinetic energy comes from dropping
large parts of buildings. It is transferred when the building pieces
hit something and stop.

>
>
>>>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.


They wanted to be able to use that part of Manhattan sometime in this
decade.

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:2jlLf.23581$Ug4.9378@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:6DkLf.23572$Ug4.8179@dukeread12:
>>
>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>> Dan > wrote in news:IpjLf.23563$Ug4.13024@dukeread12:
>>>>
>>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>>> Dan > 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> What do you think equations are for? Of course they are to solve
>>> for
>>> unknowns. I never said otherwise. Apparently you are as weak on
>>> communication as you are on science and math.
>>
>>
>> You call me weak? You're the one using not looking at all the data
>>
>>
> Stop being so sensitive, lots of people are poor communicators and
> don't understand logic, math or science.



Stop projecting how you feel about yourself onto me.






>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>> It was 21 stories before collapse.
>>>
>>> Anyone with eyes can see
>>>> that. That tiny building did NOT pulvarise to dust.
>>> Neither did WTC.
>>>
>>>> NO STEEL FRAMED HI RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPES FROM FIRE
>>>> PERIOD!
>>> Prove it.
>>
>>
>>
>> When I find the link, I will provide it. (Despite the fact that you
>> haven't provided ANY evidence of your own, other than the Mexico Ciy
>> collapse that was not caused by fire.)
>>
>>
>>
>>>> YOU are the one ignoring the evidence. So stop projecting it onto
>>>> me.
>>>>
>>> No, you are altering the test here. You never specified collapse
>>> due
>>> to fire until now.
>>
>>
>>
>> Take a look at the "FACTS" post that I posted a number of times. Fire
>> has NEVER caused a steel framed building to completely collapse. And
>> definitely not straight down, at near free fall speed, with
>> accompanying squibs and all!
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>> I might have had it been true. Besides, I have seen jet
>>> fuel/oxygen
>>> burn through steel. It's all a mater of how it's burned. Let me try
>>> an analogy you might be able to understand: a Coleman™ stove. If you
>>> pour the fuel on the ground and light it you get a relatively cool
>>> flame. Now run it through your stove. The gas generator is heated by
>>> the burner. The gas generator turns the liquid fuel into a gas. The
>>> gas form burns much hotter than the liquid form. The same was true
>>> at WTC, initially the fire was relatively cool until it started
>>> sucking air in from outside at a high rate, imagine a chimney
>>> effect, giving the fire a higher oxygen burn rate. This is
>>> essentially a variation of how a jet engine works. The exhaust gas
>>> temperatures are much higher than simple burning liquid jet fuel.
>>> Now imagine another analogy: a kerosene lamp. When you light the
>>> wick you get a low, dim flame. Put the chimney back and the air
>>> around the flame heats up. This sucks in more air at a higher rate
>>> than before which makes the flame burn hotter and brighter.
>>>
>>> Now the same jet fuel that can burn hot enough to melt steel can
>>> also
>>> burn cool enough to use in a cigarette lighter. Now you know where I
>>> used to get free lighter fluid many moons ago when I smoked.
>>
>>
>> Please provide a link where all that information can be verified by a
>> physicist, or similar expert. You might know about NORAD, but your
>> USAF background does not cover steel melting fires. Sorry.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> See above. Besides have you ever heard of oxygen/acetylene
>>> welding?
>>> It melts steel. Acetylene is a hydrocarbon fairly close to natural
>>> gas in energy. Know what the difference between an oxygen/acetylene
>>> welding torch and an oxygen/acetylene cutting torch is? Without
>>> going into detail the cutting torch burns more efficiently
>>> generating a higher temperature which cuts the steel by vapourising
>>> it.
>>
>>
>> How exactly does all this apply to the WTC?
>
> I answered your question how jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt
> steel. Please try to stay focused.



Sorry, but you are delusional. Am I supposed to believe a retired USAF
pilot over every scientist on the planet?






>>
>>>> Also, explain how the gas fires got hot enough to cause 47 steel
>>>> columns to simultaniously sever.
>>> I never said it did. You asked about the hot steel AFTER the
>>> collapse, remember? See above.
>>
>>
>>
>> I asked you numerous times how the 47 massive steel columns got
>> severed. In addition, how they got severed simultaneuosly, in both
>> towers. I am still waiting for that answer.
>
> OK, try this on for size: they didn't. They didn't need to to cause
> the collapse as it happened.


This structural engineer proves you wrong:



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








Now, stay focused and answer my question.





>>
>>>>>>>> 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, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh really. Show me just one article from a reputable source
>>>> verifying that.
>>> Just as soon as you start citing reputable sources for your
>>> claims.
>>
>>
>> If you don't consider Fire Engineering a reputable source, then your
>> thinking is not clear and there's nothing more I can do for you.
>> Sorry
>
> I never said it wasn't. I just said the article was wrong. You have
> yet to provide reputable sources for any of your other claims.



Oh I see.... so the Journal is a reputable source, but an article from
it's own Editor in Chief is not. Ummm, are you drinking??





>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>> Then your assurance would be wrong. You also assured us Jones'
>>> paper
>>> was peer reviewed so your assurances mean nothing to me. I used to
>>> be a gunsmith and I found errors in trade journals.
>>>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:HslLf.23585$Ug4.9491@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:2_kLf.23575$Ug4.17626@dukeread12:
>>
>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>> Dan > wrote in news:RbkLf.23571$Ug4.14981@dukeread12:
>>>>
>>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>>> Mike > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:20 GMT, TRUTH >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>> No squibs or other explosive devices are shown.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go visit an eye doctor
>>> I suggest the same for you. What is shown is horizontal puffs of
>>> smoke below the falling floors. They are puffs of smoke, not squibs.
>>> Squibs and explosive devices are solid devices that explode when
>>> triggered not puffs of smoke.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You're the first person I've heard to say that. Either way, that
>> doesn't negate the info
>
> Sure it does. Saying the puffs of smoke prove an explosive device
> went off is like saying mushroom clouds prove an atomic device was
> exploded. I have seen puffs of smoke generated many ways and I have
> seen huge mushroom clouds generated by non atomic methods. I have also
> seen squibs fired with no visible smoke.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>



You need to look at all the evidence and consider it all. You are not
doing that. You are in denial

[Thomas Borchert]

Truth,

> According to BYU's website, it has not been properly submitted yet.
>

One has to wonder why that might be...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Truth,

> that explain ANY of the clear scientific
> envidence provided.
>

It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science, either,
until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly the purpose
of peer review.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mike]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:33:17 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:


>So, what you're saying is that never before in world history has a steel
>framed skyscraper completely collapsed from fire, but on 9/11 it happened
>three times? And all three just happened to resemble controlled
>demolitions? Including near free fall, squibs, fine powder, etc?
>
>
>How could this happen on 9/11 three times, and never before or after 9/11?

Never bofore has there been a fire of this magnitude in a steel framed
structure where the spray applied fireproofing was mechanically
removed by the impact of an airliner. In addition, there has never
been a fire in a steel framed building where many of the support
columns at the perimeter and some at the interior were mechanically
severed by the impace of an airplane.
>
>Why did NIST change the data for their computer simulations?
I suggest you ask them.
>
>Why did they not analyse the structural behavior of the buildings after the
>onset of collapse inituation?
Because once collapse started, it was apparent that the loads by the
falling upper portion would not be able to be resisted by the
remianing portion of the building and that progressive collapse would
occur.
>
>Why did they make the claim that collapse initiation would "inevitably"
>lead to global collapse, when it never happened before in history?
This is absolute BS. There are many cases of progressive collapse
throughout modern history.

>
>How could it be from fire when they resemble controlled demolitions?
Because a controlled demolition is a progressive collapse. Fire can
cause members to be weakened which can result in a progressive
collapse.

>
>What about the FDNY statements about flashes and explosions that they said
>they thought were controlled demolition?
And these people are experts? The flashes and "explosions" that they
heard could be the steel columns buckling and the exterior facad being
crushed as the upper levels begin to come down. Depending on the
tolerances, the columns could buckle, the eniter upper portion drop by
an inch or 2 causing the facade to be crushed and appear to explode.
>
>How could burning jet fuel simultaneously sever 47 massive support columns
>in each of the Towers? If the fire was that hot, shouldn't it have
>incinerated all human beings in the area? (There were living people up
>there.)
I explained before that there was no simultaneous severing of the
columns.
>
>Please take a look at Dr Jones' paper and try to explain the 17 arguments
>he makes. If you're a registered PE, you should have no trouble. I would
>really appreciate it. Thanks...
>
>http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[TRUTH]

Mike > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:33:17 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>
>
>>So, what you're saying is that never before in world history has a
>>steel framed skyscraper completely collapsed from fire, but on 9/11 it
>>happened three times? And all three just happened to resemble
>>controlled demolitions? Including near free fall, squibs, fine powder,
>>etc?
>>
>>
>>How could this happen on 9/11 three times, and never before or after
>>9/11?
>
> Never bofore has there been a fire of this magnitude in a steel framed
> structure where the spray applied fireproofing was mechanically
> removed by the impact of an airliner. In addition, there has never
> been a fire in a steel framed building where many of the support
> columns at the perimeter and some at the interior were mechanically
> severed by the impace of an airplane.
>>
>>Why did NIST change the data for their computer simulations?
> I suggest you ask them.


From Jones' paper:

The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases
based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in
building collapse. But ‘one must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe
cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST
report:

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2)
was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of
simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the
simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports
[e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input,
but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the
pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were
adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to
provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter
columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building
collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of
such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen.
Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the
sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get
the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were
“adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained
that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns
in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)






>>Why did they not analyse the structural behavior of the buildings
>>after the onset of collapse inituation?
> Because once collapse started, it was apparent that the loads by the
> falling upper portion would not be able to be resisted by the
> remianing portion of the building and that progressive collapse would
> occur.
>>
>>Why did they make the claim that collapse initiation would
>>"inevitably" lead to global collapse, when it never happened before in
>>history?
> This is absolute BS. There are many cases of progressive collapse
> throughout modern history.



Never in steel framed buildings caused by fire. So how could they make
that claim?


Don't you think it suspicious that WTC 7 collapsed in "controlled
demolition style from fire, when it never happened before? Take it in
context with all the other information please.




>>How could it be from fire when they resemble controlled demolitions?
> Because a controlled demolition is a progressive collapse. Fire can
> cause members to be weakened which can result in a progressive
> collapse.
>
>>
>>What about the FDNY statements about flashes and explosions that they
>>said they thought were controlled demolition?
> And these people are experts? The flashes and "explosions" that they
> heard could be the steel columns buckling and the exterior facad being
> crushed as the upper levels begin to come down. Depending on the
> tolerances, the columns could buckle, the eniter upper portion drop by
> an inch or 2 causing the facade to be crushed and appear to explode.


Please read the quotes again. Multiple FDNY personnel (including captains
and commissioners) make very specific statements.



?>How could burning jet fuel simultaneously sever 47 massive support
>>columns in each of the Towers? If the fire was that hot, shouldn't it
>>have incinerated all human beings in the area? (There were living
>>people up there.)
> I explained before that there was no simultaneous severing of the
> columns.


So, in your opinion, Matthys Levy, the Structural Engineer who worked for
the WTC leaseholder's insurance company, is wrong?



>>
>>Please take a look at Dr Jones' paper and try to explain the 17
>>arguments he makes. If you're a registered PE, you should have no
>>trouble. I would really appreciate it. Thanks...
>>
>>http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
>


Please provide a professional debunk of Jones' paper. Please.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[Mike]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:10:23 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>Please provide a professional debunk of Jones' paper. Please.
>http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I would be happy to do so. My billable rate is $95/hour. I am
estimating that it will take approximately 60 hours of research to
review his paper and check the accuracy of his sources. In addition,
another 5 hours of report writing time. As you are a new client, i
would require full payment prior to beginning services.

Until the check clears, I am out and will get back to work.

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:
>
> Please provide a professional debunk of Jones' paper. Please.
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Why? Jone's is not a recognized expert in this area.

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:HslLf.23585$Ug4.9491@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in news:2_kLf.23575$Ug4.17626@dukeread12:
>>>
>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>> Dan > wrote in news:RbkLf.23571$Ug4.14981@dukeread12:
>>>>>
>>>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:20 GMT, TRUTH >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No squibs or other explosive devices are shown.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Go visit an eye doctor
>>>> I suggest the same for you. What is shown is horizontal puffs of
>>>> smoke below the falling floors. They are puffs of smoke, not squibs.
>>>> Squibs and explosive devices are solid devices that explode when
>>>> triggered not puffs of smoke.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You're the first person I've heard to say that. Either way, that
>>> doesn't negate the info
>> Sure it does. Saying the puffs of smoke prove an explosive device
>> went off is like saying mushroom clouds prove an atomic device was
>> exploded. I have seen puffs of smoke generated many ways and I have
>> seen huge mushroom clouds generated by non atomic methods. I have also
>> seen squibs fired with no visible smoke.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
> You need to look at all the evidence and consider it all. You are not
> doing that. You are in denial

No, I am in Florida.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Truth,
>
>> that explain ANY of the clear scientific
>> envidence provided.
>>
>
> It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science, either,
> until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly the purpose
> of peer review.
>
Actually real engineers in Jones' own school have debunked it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Logajan]

TRUTH > wrote:
> I do not have a physics/engineering degree, but do have a technical
> background, and definitely have an abundance of common sense.

You may be able to test Jones' speculations in the comfort of your own
home. No need for any math or computer simulations. You'll need a set of
Dominos or other long skinny rectangular blocks. Construct a mini WTC or
WTC-7 along these lines:

---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| | <-- Knock out support column here.
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
------------------ <- Ground level

Using a finger, small ball, or other mechanism to knock out a support
Domino about 2/3rds the way up. Observe the collapse. Does the tower tip
over or does it collapse in a manner similar to the WTC collapse? It has
been 40-some years since I built toy buildings out of Dominos (more fun
than playing the game, IMHO) and haven't got any games pieces or blocks
handy, so it will be interesting to see what you or others report.
Clearly no explosives have been planted in the model (using fire crackers
should be left for advanced experiments under adult supervision).

As extra credit, if you can rig something to begin free falling next to
the model when the top of the building starts falling, you can get an
idea how much slower the top falls relative to free fall.

Let me know how the experiment goes.

[-hh]

An average troll by the lame handle of "TRUTH" wrote:
> "-hh" > wrote:
>
> > 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.

You first.


> ...
> 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."

That's not what I said.


> Where is the proof of that hotter fire?

You have asked the wrong question. The correct question is:
Where is the proof that there *could* *not* *have* *been* a hotter
fire?

The problem is that some black smoke is merely proof of *a* low order
fire; it does not positively preclude the presence of a higher order
fire.


> There is no evidence showing hotter fires in other areas.

There's the evidence of tons of melted & salmon/yellow hot iron. That
says that there was a huge amount of heat that was present that
requires a source.

Jones tries to explain this away with his thermite claim. The problem
with this is that it is pragmatically inadequate to accomplish it on
the scale required: at the lower limit, you would have needed to have
smuggled at least 2,500 cubic feet of thermite *per floor* of the
building, and the upper limit is ~10,000 cubic feet *per floor*. The
scale is simply out of bounds to be considered practicable as a covert
preparation...let alone at low risk.


> One cannot simply assume that there was.

Actually, as per the principles of Occam's Razor, we are obligated to
make just that assumption. It is not until the most simple assumption
has been clearly disproven do you from a causal approach "fall back" to
a more complicated solution set.


> ...you're treating it lile it's all there is. How about explaining the rest of that paper?

I don't need to, because you only asked for (and I quote): "one piece
of evidence". Your request has been satified.



-hh

[-hh]

An average troll by the lame handle of "TRUTH" wrote:
> "-hh" > wrote:
>
> > 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.

You first.


> ...
> 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."

That's not what I said.


> Where is the proof of that hotter fire?

You have asked the wrong question. The correct question is:
Where is the proof that there *could* *not* *have* *been* a hotter
fire?

The problem is that some black smoke is merely proof of *a* low order
fire; it does not positively preclude the presence of a higher order
fire.


> There is no evidence showing hotter fires in other areas.

There's the evidence of tons of melted & salmon/yellow hot iron. That
says that there was a huge amount of heat that was present that
requires a source.

Jones tries to explain this away with his thermite claim. The problem
with this is that it is pragmatically inadequate to accomplish it on
the scale required: at the lower limit, you would have needed to have
smuggled at least 2,500 cubic feet of thermite *per floor* of the
building, and the upper limit is ~10,000 cubic feet *per floor*. The
scale is simply out of bounds to be considered practicable as a covert
preparation...let alone at low risk.


> One cannot simply assume that there was.

Actually, as per the principles of Occam's Razor, we are obligated to
make just that assumption. It is not until the most simple assumption
has been clearly disproven do you from a causal approach "fall back" to
a more complicated solution set.


> ...you're treating it lile it's all there is. How about explaining the rest of that paper?

I don't need to, because you only asked for (and I quote): "one piece
of evidence". Your request has been satified.



-hh

[Scott M. Kozel]

TRUTH > wrote:
>
> I do not have a physics/engineering degree, but do have a technical
> background, and definitely have an abundance of common sense.

You have NO common sense.

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:jbqLf.24058$Ug4.15324@dukeread12:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Truth,
>>
>>> that explain ANY of the clear scientific
>>> envidence provided.
>>>
>>
>> It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science, either,
>> until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly the purpose
>> of peer review.
>>
> Actually real engineers in Jones' own school have debunked it.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>




Yeah, where? Point out the specific URL?

[TRUTH]

"-hh" > wrote in
ups.com:

> An average troll by the lame handle of "TRUTH" wrote:
>> "-hh" > wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>
> You first.
>
>
>> ...
>> 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."
>
> That's not what I said.
>
>
>> Where is the proof of that hotter fire?
>
> You have asked the wrong question. The correct question is:
> Where is the proof that there *could* *not* *have* *been* a hotter
> fire?
>
> The problem is that some black smoke is merely proof of *a* low order
> fire; it does not positively preclude the presence of a higher order
> fire.
>
>
>> There is no evidence showing hotter fires in other areas.
>
> There's the evidence of tons of melted & salmon/yellow hot iron. That
> says that there was a huge amount of heat that was present that
> requires a source.
>
> Jones tries to explain this away with his thermite claim. The problem
> with this is that it is pragmatically inadequate to accomplish it on
> the scale required: at the lower limit, you would have needed to have
> smuggled at least 2,500 cubic feet of thermite *per floor* of the
> building, and the upper limit is ~10,000 cubic feet *per floor*. The
> scale is simply out of bounds to be considered practicable as a covert
> preparation...let alone at low risk.
>
>
>> One cannot simply assume that there was.
>
> Actually, as per the principles of Occam's Razor, we are obligated to
> make just that assumption. It is not until the most simple
> assumption has been clearly disproven do you from a causal approach
> "fall back" to a more complicated solution set.
>
>
>> ...you're treating it lile it's all there is. How about explaining
>> the rest of that paper?
>
> I don't need to, because you only asked for (and I quote): "one piece
> of evidence". Your request has been satified.
>
>
>
> -hh
>
>



You're a government shill.

[Jim Logajan]

TRUTH > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote: in
>> You may be able to test Jones' speculations in the comfort of your own
>> home. No need for any math or computer simulations. You'll need a set
>> of Dominos or other long skinny rectangular blocks. Construct a mini
>> WTC or WTC-7 along these lines:

[ Experimental details elided for brevity. ]

>> Let me know how the experiment goes.
>
> And where are the experiments pointing out the government's version?

At present we are trying to determine how model buildings collapse. Jones
claims the building should have fallen "over", not mostly down - the
version accepted by many others (including presumably the government)
allegedly say it would tend to fall mostly down, not "over." This is a
prime example where objective physical experiments can help determine the
TRUTH. If you seek truth you should be looking forward to performing the
experiment - it is easy enough to do. If, however, you have an agenda then,
well, you will find some "out".

Let me know how the experiment goes.

[Frank F. Matthews]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:jbqLf.24058$Ug4.15324@dukeread12:
>
>
>>Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>
>>>Truth,
>>>
>>>
>>>>that explain ANY of the clear scientific
>>>>envidence provided.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science, either,
>>>until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly the purpose
>>>of peer review.
>>>
>>
>> Actually real engineers in Jones' own school have debunked it.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yeah, where? Point out the specific URL?

They should bother creating a URL just to debunk you?

[TRUTH]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> TRUTH > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote: in
>>> You may be able to test Jones' speculations in the comfort of your
>>> own home. No need for any math or computer simulations. You'll need
>>> a set of Dominos or other long skinny rectangular blocks. Construct
>>> a mini WTC or WTC-7 along these lines:
>
> [ Experimental details elided for brevity. ]
>
>>> Let me know how the experiment goes.
>>
>> And where are the experiments pointing out the government's version?
>
> At present we are trying to determine how model buildings collapse.
> Jones claims the building should have fallen "over", not mostly down -
> the version accepted by many others (including presumably the
> government) allegedly say it would tend to fall mostly down, not
> "over." This is a prime example where objective physical experiments
> can help determine the TRUTH. If you seek truth you should be looking
> forward to performing the experiment - it is easy enough to do. If,
> however, you have an agenda then, well, you will find some "out".
>
> Let me know how the experiment goes.
>



I don't have the expertise to do such an experiment. Common sense is what
makes it obvious.

What did Rumsleld say the flight 93 was shot down? why did he say the
Pentagon was hit by a missile?

Respond in the other thread. I will no longer monitor this one

[khobar]

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in
> :
>
> > TRUTH > wrote:
> >>
> >> I do not have a physics/engineering degree, but do have a technical
> >> background, and definitely have an abundance of common sense.
> >
> > You have NO common sense.
> >
>
>
>
> You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence, you must be
> talking about yourself.
>
> Not one person has provided proof!

You provided proof in one of your cites.

From: http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

The Pentagon attack:
the "no plane" theories discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven
evidence of complicity

a.. there is zero evidence for any of the "no plane" claims - hundreds of
people saw the plane, none saw a cruise missile, Global Hawk robot plane,
smaller plane or flying saucer piloted by giant lizards
b.. the physical evidence shows that a large twin engine jet hit the
nearly empty part of the Pentagon, the "Black Boxes" were found, cleanup
crews found remains of the passengers, the "hole was too small" claim was a
hoax.

LOL.

Paul Nixon

[TRUTH]

"khobar" > wrote in
news:C6yLf.4487$Sp2.232@fed1read02:

> "TRUTH" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > TRUTH > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I do not have a physics/engineering degree, but do have a
>> >> technical background, and definitely have an abundance of common
>> >> sense.
>> >
>> > You have NO common sense.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence, you must
>> be talking about yourself.
>>
>> Not one person has provided proof!
>
> You provided proof in one of your cites.
>
> From: http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
>
> The Pentagon attack:
> the "no plane" theories discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from
> proven evidence of complicity
>
> a.. there is zero evidence for any of the "no plane" claims -
> hundreds of
> people saw the plane, none saw a cruise missile, Global Hawk robot
> plane, smaller plane or flying saucer piloted by giant lizards
> b.. the physical evidence shows that a large twin engine jet hit the
> nearly empty part of the Pentagon, the "Black Boxes" were found,
> cleanup crews found remains of the passengers, the "hole was too
> small" claim was a hoax.
>
> LOL.
>
> Paul Nixon
>
>
>


Okay, I understand now. There are so many unknows and opinions that not
every website will give exact same information. One just needs to look at
it, and consider which information is most important. Please post future
replies in the new thread

[Dan]

Frank F. Matthews wrote:
>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:jbqLf.24058$Ug4.15324@dukeread12:
>>
>>
>>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Truth,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> that explain ANY of the clear scientific envidence provided.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science,
>>>> either, until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly
>>>> the purpose of peer review.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually real engineers in Jones' own school have debunked it.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, where? Point out the specific URL?
>
> They should bother creating a URL just to debunk you?
>

Especially since other people have presented same showing where the
engineers at BYU very diplomatically called Jones a liar. Truth refuses
to believe it so it didn't happen.

It has been established truth:

1) knows nothing about science or the scientific method - he has said so
2) knows nothing about math - he has said so and proved as much
3) knows nothing about being a pilot - he has proved this
4) knows nothing about metallurgy - he can't accept hot metal can fail
5) knows nothing about demolition - "squib" is a "puff of smoke"
6) changes the questions after he asks them and misuses the responses
7) asks for responses from engineers and pilots then calls them liars
8) thinks name calling is a proper method of argument
9) etc

and yet tells us WE don't understand or have open minds.

I have come to the conclusion he either is that dense or he is just
yanking our collective chains.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence,

....aside from the *hundreds* of eyewitnesses (it flew over a crowded
freeway on the way in), the light poles knocked over by the plane on
approach, the missing commercial flight (it was a regularly scheduled
flight, and never landed anywhere else), the actual physical debris
(yes, it was there, and yes, it was in the colors used by that airline),
and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per hour...

[Frank F. Matthews]

Dan wrote:
> Frank F. Matthews wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>> Dan > wrote in news:jbqLf.24058$Ug4.15324@dukeread12:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Truth,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that explain ANY of the clear scientific envidence provided.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science,
>>>>> either, until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly
>>>>> the purpose of peer review.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually real engineers in Jones' own school have debunked it.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, where? Point out the specific URL?
>>
>>
>> They should bother creating a URL just to debunk you?
>>
>
> Especially since other people have presented same showing where the
> engineers at BYU very diplomatically called Jones a liar. Truth refuses
> to believe it so it didn't happen.
>
> It has been established truth:
>
> 1) knows nothing about science or the scientific method - he has said so
> 2) knows nothing about math - he has said so and proved as much
> 3) knows nothing about being a pilot - he has proved this
> 4) knows nothing about metallurgy - he can't accept hot metal can fail
> 5) knows nothing about demolition - "squib" is a "puff of smoke"
> 6) changes the questions after he asks them and misuses the responses
> 7) asks for responses from engineers and pilots then calls them liars
> 8) thinks name calling is a proper method of argument
> 9) etc
>
> and yet tells us WE don't understand or have open minds.
>
> I have come to the conclusion he either is that dense or he is just
> yanking our collective chains.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In a way. He like you and I are just having fun. He just needs to
sound like a nut while doing it. Given his rabid defense of the prof I
suspect that he is the prof hiding and trying to look like he has
supporters.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 03:53:52 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>Dan > wrote in news:jbqLf.24058$Ug4.15324@dukeread12:
>
>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>> Truth,
>>>
>>>> that explain ANY of the clear scientific
>>>> envidence provided.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science, either,
>>> until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly the purpose
>>> of peer review.
>>>
>> Actually real engineers in Jones' own school have debunked it.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
>
>Yeah, where? Point out the specific URL?

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724

<begin excerpt>
Not long after this spate of interviews, BYU’s College of Physical and
Mathematical Sciences posted a statement on its Web site stressing Jones’ right
to publish what he wished while distancing itself from Jones’ current research.

That statement has since been removed, but a similar one is still online at the
College of Engineering and Technology’s Web site.

“The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones’s hypotheses and
interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center
buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners,
including many of BYU’s own faculty members,” it reads in part.

“Professor Jones’s 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.”

Reached for comment, structural engineering professors Steven Benzley and Rick
Balling both said they supported the statement as written.

Balling said he and Benzley have made contact with Jones on more than one
occasion, engaging him in a dialogue about the more technical aspects of his
research.
</end excerpt>


"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and
Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

That's pretty damn clear, even you should get the fact that real engineers in
his own school have debunked it. And before you go off on an irrelevant
tangent, the Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering and Technology is indeed part
of BYU. http://www.et.byu.edu/

[Johnny Bravo]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:54:51 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>I don't have the expertise to do such an experiment. Common sense is what
>makes it obvious.

Common sense is what tells you the Earth is flat.

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:wTCLf.26212$Ug4.11880@dukeread12:

> Frank F. Matthews wrote:
>>
>>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in news:jbqLf.24058$Ug4.15324@dukeread12:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Truth,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that explain ANY of the clear scientific envidence provided.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science,
>>>>> either, until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly
>>>>> the purpose of peer review.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually real engineers in Jones' own school have debunked it.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, where? Point out the specific URL?
>>
>> They should bother creating a URL just to debunk you?
>>
>
> Especially since other people have presented same showing where the
> engineers at BYU very diplomatically called Jones a liar. Truth refuses
> to believe it so it didn't happen.
>
> It has been established truth:
>
> 1) knows nothing about science or the scientific method - he has said
so
> 2) knows nothing about math - he has said so and proved as much
> 3) knows nothing about being a pilot - he has proved this
> 4) knows nothing about metallurgy - he can't accept hot metal can fail
> 5) knows nothing about demolition - "squib" is a "puff of smoke"
> 6) changes the questions after he asks them and misuses the responses
> 7) asks for responses from engineers and pilots then calls them liars
> 8) thinks name calling is a proper method of argument
> 9) etc
>
> and yet tells us WE don't understand or have open minds.
>
> I have come to the conclusion he either is that dense or he is just
> yanking our collective chains.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>



I've explained the reasons why the strucural engineering department at
BYU does not (publicly) believe Jones. There are scared for their lives.
Perhaps their afraid of an anthrax letter. (Afterall, anthrax letters
were mailed to two senators who opposed the Patriot Act.)

But, BYU's strucural engineering department's disaagreement with Jones is
not the same as debunking the paper.


(Dan, if you respond to this message, please do so in the other thread.
There's too many posts to keep track of in all these threads. And yes, I
know it's my fault for creating them.)

[TRUTH]

Dr. George O. Bizzigotti > wrote in
:

>
> I was able to find the text of the BYU press release at:
> http://oddbits3.blogspot.com/2005/12/byu-on-wtc-collapse-controversy.ht
> ml
>
> and Wikipedia includes quotes from the Chairman of BYU's Department of
> Civil and Environmental Engineering:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
>
> I wouldn't exactly say that this amounts to "debunking" Jones
> hypothesis. Nevertheless, I would say that Jones is not exactly good
> science here. He states his hypothesis, and he cherry-picks facts that
> appear to support his hypothesis. That may be an effective debating
> tool, but it's not good science. If one is doing science, one is
> obligated to look for and present evidence against the hypothesis.
>
> For starters, Jones assumes that a 0.6 second delay from what he
> asserts would be the time required for a building to free-fall is too
> short to allow for a fire-induced pancake collapse. There is zero
> analysis to support this assumption; it may or may not be valid, but
> I'd like to see reference to an engineering analysis of such a
> collapse that supported his assumption.
>
> Another assumption is that a building collapsing into it's own
> footprint is inconsistent with the "Law of increasing entropy when due
> to random causes." However, Jones cites as "proof" of this assertion
> the collapse of buildings due to earthquakes. Might buildings in
> earthquakes tend to collapse asymmetrically because the ground is
> shaking underneath them in a non-random fashion?
>
> Jones asserts that air expulsion due to collapsing floors is
> "excluded" because the interval between puffs is longer than the time
> required for one floor to free-fall to the next. He gives the equation
> for acceleration due to gravity, which could be valid only for time to
> collapse the first floor; I suspect that the first floor to go
> actually took somewhat longer to collapse because it was not in free
> fall. However, the equation is inadequate to explain the collapse of
> the next floor, because the building above that point is now falling,
> and therefore there are forces other than gravity to consider.
>
> Jones suggests that the buildings were collapsed by radio-controlled
> detonations using thermite and explosives, but he doesn't appear to
> understand that controlled collapse using explosives in every case of
> which I'm aware requires that the building be largely gutted, and that
> the thermite chemical reaction requires a few seconds to melt metal,
> so this alternative explanation has even bigger timing problems than
> the "government explanation" he dismissed.
>
> I really don't have the time or the energy to go through every detail
> of Jones' paper. As another poster to this thread, who is a registered
> professional engineer has explained, one can get a full review once
> one's check clears. I suspect that I have done what other scientists
> and engineers have done in the absence of payment: noticed multiple
> egregious examples of ignoring rather large problems with his
> hypothesis and concluded that Jones is more interested in scoring
> debating points than he is in science in this instance.
>
> Regards,
>
> George
> ************************************************** ********************
> Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
> Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
> 3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
> Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
> ************************************************** ********************
> *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
> *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
> http://www.SecureIX.com ***
>


Dr Bizzigotti: Thank you for taking the time to provide some analysis of
Professor Jones' paper. Would you consider sending Dr Jones an email
describing your findings? Only when enough scientists come together will
the information and data be properly analysed.


Thank you,
TRUTH (individual member of the 9/11 Truth Movement)




Info on 9/11 Truth Movement:

www.NY911Truth.org (Les Jamieson - NY 911 Truth Coordinator)

www.911Truth.org (Nic Levis - 911 Truth East Coast Director)


Recent Article in The Village Voice:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72255,6.html

[TRUTH]

Untrue, and I can demonstrate that here:




Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-6A2D32.09511624022006
@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence,
>
> ...aside from the *hundreds* of eyewitnesses (it flew over a crowded
> freeway on the way in),



First of all, many people reported seeing a plane that looked nothing
like a 757. (They reported a much smaller plane.)

Second, if one could say that the FDNY personnel acounts of flashes,
explosions, bombs at the WTC (that they compared to conrolled
demoltions!) are unreliable, then the same could be said for any
eyewitnesses who think they saw a 757 fly near the Pentagon. Fire
department personnel may not be experts in controlled demolitions, but
they sure as hell know more about it than the "average joe" knows about
airplanes.

Third, where exactly did you hear that *hundreds* of eyewitnesses
reported a 757 at the Pentagon? Do you have a URL for this?



> the light poles knocked over by the plane on
> approach,


easily accomlished by a small drone




the missing commercial flight (it was a regularly scheduled
> flight, and never landed anywhere else),


Could have landed at a military base. Or, may God help them, shot down
over the Atlantic



the actual physical debris
> (yes, it was there, and yes, it was in the colors used by that
airline),


If you're referring to this
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg

It was easily dropped by someone involved.


Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?



> and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
> commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per hour...


That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for yourself

[khobar]

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> Untrue, and I can demonstrate that here:
>
>
>
>
> Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-6A2D32.09511624022006
> @news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> > In article >,
> > TRUTH > wrote:
> >
> >> You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence,
> >
> > ...aside from the *hundreds* of eyewitnesses (it flew over a crowded
> > freeway on the way in),
>
>
>
> First of all, many people reported seeing a plane that looked nothing
> like a 757. (They reported a much smaller plane.)
>
> Second, if one could say that the FDNY personnel acounts of flashes,
> explosions, bombs at the WTC (that they compared to conrolled
> demoltions!) are unreliable, then the same could be said for any
> eyewitnesses who think they saw a 757 fly near the Pentagon. Fire
> department personnel may not be experts in controlled demolitions, but
> they sure as hell know more about it than the "average joe" knows about
> airplanes.
>
> Third, where exactly did you hear that *hundreds* of eyewitnesses
> reported a 757 at the Pentagon? Do you have a URL for this?
>
>
>
> > the light poles knocked over by the plane on
> > approach,
>
>
> easily accomlished by a small drone
>
>
>
>
> the missing commercial flight (it was a regularly scheduled
> > flight, and never landed anywhere else),
>
>
> Could have landed at a military base. Or, may God help them, shot down
> over the Atlantic
>
>
>
> the actual physical debris
> > (yes, it was there, and yes, it was in the colors used by that
> airline),
>
>
> If you're referring to this
> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg
>
> It was easily dropped by someone involved.
>
>
> Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
> passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
> incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?
>
>
>
> > and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
> > commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per hour...
>
>
> That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for yourself

You provided proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon yourself, and acknowledged
such.

Paul Nixon

[Frank F. Matthews]

TRUTH wrote:

> Dan > wrote in news:wTCLf.26212$Ug4.11880@dukeread12:
>
>
>>Frank F. Matthews wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>TRUTH wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dan > wrote in news:jbqLf.24058$Ug4.15324@dukeread12:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Truth,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>that explain ANY of the clear scientific envidence provided.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science,
>>>>>>either, until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly
>>>>>>the purpose of peer review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually real engineers in Jones' own school have debunked it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, where? Point out the specific URL?
>>>
>>>They should bother creating a URL just to debunk you?
>>>
>>
>> Especially since other people have presented same showing where the
>>engineers at BYU very diplomatically called Jones a liar. Truth refuses
>>to believe it so it didn't happen.
>>
>>It has been established truth:
>>
>>1) knows nothing about science or the scientific method - he has said
>
> so
>
>>2) knows nothing about math - he has said so and proved as much
>>3) knows nothing about being a pilot - he has proved this
>>4) knows nothing about metallurgy - he can't accept hot metal can fail
>>5) knows nothing about demolition - "squib" is a "puff of smoke"
>>6) changes the questions after he asks them and misuses the responses
>>7) asks for responses from engineers and pilots then calls them liars
>>8) thinks name calling is a proper method of argument
>>9) etc
>>
>>and yet tells us WE don't understand or have open minds.
>>
>> I have come to the conclusion he either is that dense or he is just
>>yanking our collective chains.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
>
> I've explained the reasons why the strucural engineering department at
> BYU does not (publicly) believe Jones. There are scared for their lives.
> Perhaps their afraid of an anthrax letter. (Afterall, anthrax letters
> were mailed to two senators who opposed the Patriot Act.)
>
> But, BYU's strucural engineering department's disaagreement with Jones is
> not the same as debunking the paper.
>
>
> (Dan, if you respond to this message, please do so in the other thread.
> There's too many posts to keep track of in all these threads. And yes, I
> know it's my fault for creating them.)


Boy. Now all the experts who disagree with your non expert are simply
afraid for their lives. Please. And you promised to leave us alone and
go away to your new thread.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> I've explained the reasons why the strucural engineering department at
> BYU does not (publicly) believe Jones. There are scared for their lives.
> Perhaps their afraid of an anthrax letter. (Afterall, anthrax letters
> were mailed to two senators who opposed the Patriot Act.)

....weeks before the Patriot Act was even written, and a month and a half
before it came to a vote...

So the Eeeeeevil Bush/Cheney Conspiracy has a time machine, too?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> First of all, many people reported seeing a plane that looked nothing
> like a 757. (They reported a much smaller plane.)

Funny, I've met quite a few people who were on that highway that day,
and two of them were commercially-rated airline pilots (who are not
likely to screw up a plane ID like that).

[Johnny Bravo]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:33:32 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> I've explained the reasons why the strucural engineering department at
>> BYU does not (publicly) believe Jones. There are scared for their lives.
>> Perhaps their afraid of an anthrax letter. (Afterall, anthrax letters
>> were mailed to two senators who opposed the Patriot Act.)
>
>...weeks before the Patriot Act was even written, and a month and a half
>before it came to a vote...
>
>So the Eeeeeevil Bush/Cheney Conspiracy has a time machine, too?

Maybe that's how the government knew that WTC-7 would be hit so they could
wire it for destruction in advance.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:26:15 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
>passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
>incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?

Teeth are not your typical organic matter.

[Frank F. Matthews]

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:26:15 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>
>
>>Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
>>passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
>>incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?
>
>
> Teeth are not your typical organic matter.

They would fit any reasonable definition that I can think of. Now,
fillings, that's something else.

[george]

Chad Irby wrote:
> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
> > First of all, many people reported seeing a plane that looked nothing
> > like a 757. (They reported a much smaller plane.)
>
> Funny, I've met quite a few people who were on that highway that day,
> and two of them were commercially-rated airline pilots (who are not
> likely to screw up a plane ID like that).

I've posted the eyewitness account URL often enough that strewth has
had opportunity to see that the majority of witnesses got the aircraft
type and the Airline correct..

[Johnny Bravo]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 02:30:04 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
> wrote:

>
>
>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:26:15 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
>>>passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
>>>incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?
>>
>>
>> Teeth are not your typical organic matter.
>
>They would fit any reasonable definition that I can think of. Now,
>fillings, that's something else.

Didn't say they weren't organic, just that they aren't typical in terms of
being burned up in a fire. One study has 85% of the teeth tested survive a fire
lasting 50 minutes in which temperatures exceeded 1,000 degrees.

A typical aluminum skinned airliner subjected to such temperatures and then
having a a few floors of a building collapse on the wreckage is going to all but
obliterate it to casual inspection; but human remains inside are likely to still
have recoverable DNA.

[TRUTH]

"khobar" > wrote in news:6L_Lf.4564$Sp2.2013
@fed1read02:

> "TRUTH" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Untrue, and I can demonstrate that here:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-6A2D32.09511624022006
>> @news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > TRUTH > wrote:
>> >
>> >> You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence,
>> >
>> > ...aside from the *hundreds* of eyewitnesses (it flew over a crowded
>> > freeway on the way in),
>>
>>
>>
>> First of all, many people reported seeing a plane that looked nothing
>> like a 757. (They reported a much smaller plane.)
>>
>> Second, if one could say that the FDNY personnel acounts of flashes,
>> explosions, bombs at the WTC (that they compared to conrolled
>> demoltions!) are unreliable, then the same could be said for any
>> eyewitnesses who think they saw a 757 fly near the Pentagon. Fire
>> department personnel may not be experts in controlled demolitions, but
>> they sure as hell know more about it than the "average joe" knows
about
>> airplanes.
>>
>> Third, where exactly did you hear that *hundreds* of eyewitnesses
>> reported a 757 at the Pentagon? Do you have a URL for this?
>>
>>
>>
>> > the light poles knocked over by the plane on
>> > approach,
>>
>>
>> easily accomlished by a small drone
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> the missing commercial flight (it was a regularly scheduled
>> > flight, and never landed anywhere else),
>>
>>
>> Could have landed at a military base. Or, may God help them, shot down
>> over the Atlantic
>>
>>
>>
>> the actual physical debris
>> > (yes, it was there, and yes, it was in the colors used by that
>> airline),
>>
>>
>> If you're referring to this
>> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg
>>
>> It was easily dropped by someone involved.
>>
>>
>> Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
>> passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
>> incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?
>>
>>
>>
>> > and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
>> > commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per
hour...
>>
>>
>> That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for yourself
>
> You provided proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon yourself, and
acknowledged
> such.
>
> Paul Nixon
>
>
>


You must be twisting my words. I never said such a thing

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in news:cL_Lf.35172$Jd.22568
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> If you're referring to this
>> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg
>>
>> It was easily dropped by someone involved.
>
> Unnoticed by anyone else?
>
>>
>>
>> Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
>> passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
>> incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?
>>
>
> What government source? Got a link to a valid source of this?
> It doesn't sound like an accurate statement and would be of little
> benefit to the government in its plan to invade Iraq. Why would they
> need to report that all of the bodies were identified?



I read this on a NY government site (I believe). Not sure of the link off
hand but will try to find it

>
>>
>>
>>>and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
>>>commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per hour...
>>
>>
>>
>> That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for yourself
>
> One of the links you posted showed and explained this.
> The website indicated the false plane story was an attempt to discredit
> the "TRUTH" people, since there is too much evidence a 757 did crash
> into the Pentagon. Why did you post a link for a site that believes
> there was a conspiracy, but disagrees with you about the plane?
>

Where is the evidence that a 757 hit the pentagon? Which of the links did
I post that says this? Please tell me

[TRUTH]

"Frank F. Matthews" > wrote in
:

>
>
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:26:15 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
>>>passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
>>>incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?
>>
>>
>> Teeth are not your typical organic matter.
>
> They would fit any reasonable definition that I can think of. Now,
> fillings, that's something else.
>
>



Hmmm. that's interesting. I will check into that

[khobar]

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> mrtravel > wrote in news:cL_Lf.35172$Jd.22568
> @newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> If you're referring to this
> >> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg
> >>
> >> It was easily dropped by someone involved.
> >
> > Unnoticed by anyone else?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
> >> passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
> >> incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?
> >>
> >
> > What government source? Got a link to a valid source of this?
> > It doesn't sound like an accurate statement and would be of little
> > benefit to the government in its plan to invade Iraq. Why would they
> > need to report that all of the bodies were identified?
>
>
>
> I read this on a NY government site (I believe). Not sure of the link off
> hand but will try to find it
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
> >>>commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per hour...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for yourself
> >
> > One of the links you posted showed and explained this.
> > The website indicated the false plane story was an attempt to discredit
> > the "TRUTH" people, since there is too much evidence a 757 did crash
> > into the Pentagon. Why did you post a link for a site that believes
> > there was a conspiracy, but disagrees with you about the plane?
> >
>
> Where is the evidence that a 757 hit the pentagon? Which of the links did
> I post that says this? Please tell me.

Well, maybe if you say "pretty please, with sugar on top"...

Paul Nixon

[khobar]

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> "khobar" > wrote in news:6L_Lf.4564$Sp2.2013
> @fed1read02:
>
> > "TRUTH" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Untrue, and I can demonstrate that here:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-6A2D32.09511624022006
> >> @news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > TRUTH > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence,
> >> >
> >> > ...aside from the *hundreds* of eyewitnesses (it flew over a crowded
> >> > freeway on the way in),
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> First of all, many people reported seeing a plane that looked nothing
> >> like a 757. (They reported a much smaller plane.)
> >>
> >> Second, if one could say that the FDNY personnel acounts of flashes,
> >> explosions, bombs at the WTC (that they compared to conrolled
> >> demoltions!) are unreliable, then the same could be said for any
> >> eyewitnesses who think they saw a 757 fly near the Pentagon. Fire
> >> department personnel may not be experts in controlled demolitions, but
> >> they sure as hell know more about it than the "average joe" knows
> about
> >> airplanes.
> >>
> >> Third, where exactly did you hear that *hundreds* of eyewitnesses
> >> reported a 757 at the Pentagon? Do you have a URL for this?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > the light poles knocked over by the plane on
> >> > approach,
> >>
> >>
> >> easily accomlished by a small drone
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> the missing commercial flight (it was a regularly scheduled
> >> > flight, and never landed anywhere else),
> >>
> >>
> >> Could have landed at a military base. Or, may God help them, shot down
> >> over the Atlantic
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> the actual physical debris
> >> > (yes, it was there, and yes, it was in the colors used by that
> >> airline),
> >>
> >>
> >> If you're referring to this
> >> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg
> >>
> >> It was easily dropped by someone involved.
> >>
> >>
> >> Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
> >> passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
> >> incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
> >> > commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per
> hour...
> >>
> >>
> >> That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for yourself
> >
> > You provided proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon yourself, and
> acknowledged
> > such.
> >
> > Paul Nixon
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> You must be twisting my words. I never said such a thing

Actually you did, when I pointed out that you posted a link to proof that a
757 did hit the Pentagon. In summary, your response was something to the
effect of "opps, I'm not perfect!".

Paul Nixon

[TRUTH]

"khobar" > wrote in
news:nxpMf.4760$Sp2.702@fed1read02:

> "TRUTH" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "khobar" > wrote in news:6L_Lf.4564$Sp2.2013
>> @fed1read02:
>>
>> > "TRUTH" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Untrue, and I can demonstrate that here:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Chad Irby > wrote in
>> >> news:cirby-6A2D32.09511624022006 @news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:
>> >>
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > TRUTH > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence,
>> >> >
>> >> > ...aside from the *hundreds* of eyewitnesses (it flew over a
>> >> > crowded freeway on the way in),
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> First of all, many people reported seeing a plane that looked
>> >> nothing like a 757. (They reported a much smaller plane.)
>> >>
>> >> Second, if one could say that the FDNY personnel acounts of
>> >> flashes, explosions, bombs at the WTC (that they compared to
>> >> conrolled demoltions!) are unreliable, then the same could be said
>> >> for any eyewitnesses who think they saw a 757 fly near the
>> >> Pentagon. Fire department personnel may not be experts in
>> >> controlled demolitions, but they sure as hell know more about it
>> >> than the "average joe" knows
>> about
>> >> airplanes.
>> >>
>> >> Third, where exactly did you hear that *hundreds* of eyewitnesses
>> >> reported a 757 at the Pentagon? Do you have a URL for this?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > the light poles knocked over by the plane on
>> >> > approach,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> easily accomlished by a small drone
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> the missing commercial flight (it was a regularly scheduled
>> >> > flight, and never landed anywhere else),
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Could have landed at a military base. Or, may God help them, shot
>> >> down over the Atlantic
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> the actual physical debris
>> >> > (yes, it was there, and yes, it was in the colors used by that
>> >> airline),
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If you're referring to this
>> >> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg
>> >>
>> >> It was easily dropped by someone involved.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all*
>> >> the passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal)
>> >> practically incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal
>> >> plane) survived?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
>> >> > commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per
>> hour...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for
>> >> yourself
>> >
>> > You provided proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon yourself, and
>> acknowledged
>> > such.
>> >
>> > Paul Nixon
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> You must be twisting my words. I never said such a thing
>
> Actually you did, when I pointed out that you posted a link to proof
> that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. In summary, your response was
> something to the effect of "opps, I'm not perfect!".
>
> Paul Nixon
>
>
>


That wasn't in response to finding evidence of a 757 at the pentagon,

[khobar]

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> "khobar" > wrote in
> news:nxpMf.4760$Sp2.702@fed1read02:
>
> > "TRUTH" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "khobar" > wrote in news:6L_Lf.4564$Sp2.2013
> >> @fed1read02:
> >>
> >> > "TRUTH" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> Untrue, and I can demonstrate that here:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Chad Irby > wrote in
> >> >> news:cirby-6A2D32.09511624022006 @news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > TRUTH > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ...aside from the *hundreds* of eyewitnesses (it flew over a
> >> >> > crowded freeway on the way in),
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> First of all, many people reported seeing a plane that looked
> >> >> nothing like a 757. (They reported a much smaller plane.)
> >> >>
> >> >> Second, if one could say that the FDNY personnel acounts of
> >> >> flashes, explosions, bombs at the WTC (that they compared to
> >> >> conrolled demoltions!) are unreliable, then the same could be said
> >> >> for any eyewitnesses who think they saw a 757 fly near the
> >> >> Pentagon. Fire department personnel may not be experts in
> >> >> controlled demolitions, but they sure as hell know more about it
> >> >> than the "average joe" knows
> >> about
> >> >> airplanes.
> >> >>
> >> >> Third, where exactly did you hear that *hundreds* of eyewitnesses
> >> >> reported a 757 at the Pentagon? Do you have a URL for this?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > the light poles knocked over by the plane on
> >> >> > approach,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> easily accomlished by a small drone
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> the missing commercial flight (it was a regularly scheduled
> >> >> > flight, and never landed anywhere else),
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Could have landed at a military base. Or, may God help them, shot
> >> >> down over the Atlantic
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> the actual physical debris
> >> >> > (yes, it was there, and yes, it was in the colors used by that
> >> >> airline),
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> If you're referring to this
> >> >> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg
> >> >>
> >> >> It was easily dropped by someone involved.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all*
> >> >> the passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal)
> >> >> practically incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal
> >> >> plane) survived?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
> >> >> > commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per
> >> hour...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for
> >> >> yourself
> >> >
> >> > You provided proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon yourself, and
> >> acknowledged
> >> > such.
> >> >
> >> > Paul Nixon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> You must be twisting my words. I never said such a thing
> >
> > Actually you did, when I pointed out that you posted a link to proof
> > that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. In summary, your response was
> > something to the effect of "opps, I'm not perfect!".
> >
> > Paul Nixon
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> That wasn't in response to finding evidence of a 757 at the pentagon,

What was it in response to then, eh?

Paul Nixon

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:

> "khobar" > wrote in news:6L_Lf.4564$Sp2.2013
> @fed1read02:
>>
>>You provided proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon yourself, and
>
> acknowledged
>
>>such.
>>
>>Paul Nixon
>>

>
> You must be twisting my words. I never said such a thing

You provide a link to a Pro-Truth website that said such a thing.
Are you just blindly posting links without reading the first webpage
they point to?

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:

>>>
>>>That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for yourself
>>
>>You provided proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon yourself, and
>
> acknowledged
>
>>such.
>>
>>Paul Nixon
>
> You must be twisting my words. I never said such a thing

You were previously given this information by 2 other people, and since
you didn't know how to answer them, you ignored it.

Do you deny posting this link?
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

Do you understand what is said there?

To summarize: The website indicates the claim that there wasn't a plane
was made to discredit the "Truth" people, because it is so obvious there
was a 757 at the Pentagon.

So, these people don't believe the government's story, but do believe
there was a 757. Are you now going to claim that you posted the link
because you didn't agree with it?

[-hh]

An average troll by the lame handle of "TRUTH" wrote:
> "-hh" > wrote>
> > An average troll by the lame handle of "TRUTH" wrote:
> >>
> >>...btw, what is your expertise and education, may I ask.
> >
> > You first.

Just a placeholder :-)

> >> ...you're treating it lile it's all there is. How about explaining
> >> the rest of that paper?
> >
> > I don't need to, because you only asked for (and I quote): "one piece
> > of evidence". Your request has been satified.
>
> You're a government shill.

You've resorted to namecalling; how nice. According to Bell's Law,
this means that you've run out of substantiative things to say, which
means you've admitted that you've lost the arguement.

The laws of physics and logic of causality don't care who points out
the facts, because that cannot change the facts. Logically, "a chain
is only as strong as its weakest link", so it only takes one disproven
fact to debunk Jone's claims...and from what I provided, I illustrated
that Jone's chain was broken at least twice, which makes it quite
compelling that he's completely and utterly wrong.

You're free to believe that Jones can ignore the laws of physics and
logical causality if you wish, but you'll be completely, utterly and
forever wrong.


-hh

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in news:R2yMf.25466$_S7.18005
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> "khobar" > wrote in news:6L_Lf.4564$Sp2.2013
>> @fed1read02:
>>>
>>>You provided proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon yourself, and
>>
>> acknowledged
>>
>>>such.
>>>
>>>Paul Nixon
>>>
>
>>
>> You must be twisting my words. I never said such a thing
>
> You provide a link to a Pro-Truth website that said such a thing.
> Are you just blindly posting links without reading the first webpage
> they point to?
>


Which link was this? I posted so many I really don't remember

[[email protected]]

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 02:30:04 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Johnny Bravo wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:26:15 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
> >>>passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
> >>>incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?
> >>
> >>
> >> Teeth are not your typical organic matter.
> >
> >They would fit any reasonable definition that I can think of. Now,
> >fillings, that's something else.
>
> Didn't say they weren't organic, just that they aren't typical in terms of
> being burned up in a fire. One study has 85% of the teeth tested survive a fire
> lasting 50 minutes in which temperatures exceeded 1,000 degrees.
>
> A typical aluminum skinned airliner subjected to such temperatures and then
> having a a few floors of a building collapse on the wreckage is going to all but
> obliterate it to casual inspection; but human remains inside are likely to still
> have recoverable DNA.

I think the bulk of a tooth is inorganic, and contains no DNA
but the innermost part has the nerve and a little flesh and blood
that is organic, and does have DNA. But if the tooth is heated
long and hot enough that DNA will be destroyed.

Besides, separating bone fragments and teeth from pulverized plaster
and cement, while no doubt doable, could not have been thoroughly
done within the amount of time during which the debris was removed
and disposed of.

--

FF

[Keith W]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 02:30:04 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:26:15 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
>> >>>passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
>> >>>incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Teeth are not your typical organic matter.
>> >
>> >They would fit any reasonable definition that I can think of. Now,
>> >fillings, that's something else.
>>
>> Didn't say they weren't organic, just that they aren't typical in terms
>> of
>> being burned up in a fire. One study has 85% of the teeth tested survive
>> a fire
>> lasting 50 minutes in which temperatures exceeded 1,000 degrees.
>>
>> A typical aluminum skinned airliner subjected to such temperatures and
>> then
>> having a a few floors of a building collapse on the wreckage is going to
>> all but
>> obliterate it to casual inspection; but human remains inside are likely
>> to still
>> have recoverable DNA.
>
> I think the bulk of a tooth is inorganic,

Well no, unless its an artificial replacement a tooth was
made by the body that its attached too and is by definition organic.

> and contains no DNA
> but the innermost part has the nerve and a little flesh and blood
> that is organic, and does have DNA. But if the tooth is heated
> long and hot enough that DNA will be destroyed.
>

True but a tooth is essentially a sealed ceramic capsule.
Its a matter of record that DNA has been retrieved from
victims who's bodies were reduced to charcoal in a fire.

> Besides, separating bone fragments and teeth from pulverized plaster
> and cement, while no doubt doable, could not have been thoroughly
> done within the amount of time during which the debris was removed
> and disposed of.
>

Well no, it was done while the wreckage was being sorted and
sifted off site and they had several months to do this.

Again they recovered considerable such samples
from the Oceanic crashes of TWA-800 and SwissAir 111
so recovery from the WTC is quite believable.

Keith

[[email protected]]

Keith W wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> ...
>
> True but a tooth is essentially a sealed ceramic capsule.
> Its a matter of record that DNA has been retrieved from
> victims who's bodies were reduced to charcoal in a fire.

Understood.

>
> > Besides, separating bone fragments and teeth from pulverized plaster
> > and cement, while no doubt doable, could not have been thoroughly
> > done within the amount of time during which the debris was removed
> > and disposed of.
> >
>
> Well no, it was done while the wreckage was being sorted and
> sifted off site and they had several months to do this.

It took several months just to clear the materials from the site.

Given that identifiable remains were found for less than half
of the victims I tend to think the examination was not that
thorough.

>
> Again they recovered considerable such samples
> from the Oceanic crashes of TWA-800 and SwissAir 111
> so recovery from the WTC is quite believable.
>

Oh, I agree that it is quite believable. In fact, I am surprised that
so many of the victims had no remains recovered. The only
viable explanation is that a lot of human remains were left
unseparrated from the rubble. One would expect that most
of the bodies of the victims killed in the collapse would have
still been largely in one piece when the dust settled, leaving
concentrated pockets of remains to be exhumed later.

--

FF

[Newps]

TRUTH wrote:


>
> Hmmmm. that's interesting. Yeah I did post that link, I got it from
> somewhere without checking into it first,

This is your main problem and would have saved you from wearing out your
keyboard.

[Keith W]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>

>>
>
> Oh, I agree that it is quite believable. In fact, I am surprised that
> so many of the victims had no remains recovered. The only
> viable explanation is that a lot of human remains were left
> unseparrated from the rubble. One would expect that most
> of the bodies of the victims killed in the collapse would have
> still been largely in one piece when the dust settled, leaving
> concentrated pockets of remains to be exhumed later.
>

I suspect the issue is where in the building the victims were
when the tower collapsed. Anyone near the bottom would
likely leave no trace as they were under the pile of rubble
where there was intense heat for days if not weeks. Even teeth
and bones will calcine in those conditions.

Keith

[Pooh Bear]

TRUTH wrote:

> Which link was this? I posted so many I really don't remember

You mean you're a congenital liar ?

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

wrote:

> Besides, separating bone fragments and teeth from pulverized plaster
> and cement, while no doubt doable, could not have been thoroughly
> done within the amount of time during which the debris was removed
> and disposed of.

According to exactly who apart from yourself ?

Graham

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
<snip>
>
> I will read through it carefully later, but wanted to point out that
> there are lots of opinions on 9/11, and not all of them will be true. For
> instance, some people still believe in holligrams and no planes at the
> WTC.
>
Holograms DO exist, genius, look at a credit card or the new U.S. currency.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Denny]

One would expect that most
of the bodies of the victims killed in the collapse would have
still been largely in one piece when the dust settled, leaving
concentrated pockets of remains to be exhumed later.

-- ************************************************** ***

You can expect that but you will be wrong... The bodies were as
throroughly ground up as if you had put them through a sausage
grinder... The resulting pulp was thoroughly mixed with an alkali and
tossed like a dinner salad with tens of millions of pounds of other
material.. No visible body parts for the excavating machine operators
to notice as they were scooping...

denny

[Keith W]

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> One would expect that most
> of the bodies of the victims killed in the collapse would have
> still been largely in one piece when the dust settled, leaving
> concentrated pockets of remains to be exhumed later.
>
> -- ************************************************** ***
>
> You can expect that but you will be wrong... The bodies were as
> throroughly ground up as if you had put them through a sausage
> grinder... The resulting pulp was thoroughly mixed with an alkali and
> tossed like a dinner salad with tens of millions of pounds of other
> material.. No visible body parts for the excavating machine operators
> to notice as they were scooping...
>
> denny
>

Well around 280 complete bodies were recovered as I recall and
the forensic teams report recovering and analysing
the DNA of some 14249 body parts that were recovered

Keith

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:54:51 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
> > TRUTH > wrote:
> >> Jim Logajan > wrote: in
> >>> You may be able to test Jones' speculations in the comfort of your
> >>> own home. No need for any math or computer simulations. You'll need
> >>> a set of Dominos or other long skinny rectangular blocks. Construct
> >>> a mini WTC or WTC-7 along these lines:
> >
> > [ Experimental details elided for brevity. ]
> >
> >>> Let me know how the experiment goes.
> >>
> >> And where are the experiments pointing out the government's version?
> >
> > At present we are trying to determine how model buildings collapse.
> > Jones claims the building should have fallen "over", not mostly down -
> > the version accepted by many others (including presumably the
> > government) allegedly say it would tend to fall mostly down, not
> > "over." This is a prime example where objective physical experiments
> > can help determine the TRUTH. If you seek truth you should be looking
> > forward to performing the experiment - it is easy enough to do. If,
> > however, you have an agenda then, well, you will find some "out".
> >
> > Let me know how the experiment goes.
> >
>
>
>
> I don't have the expertise to do such an experiment. Common sense is what
> makes it obvious.

You dont know how to play with wooden blocks ??????



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Fri, 24 Feb 2006 04:05:43 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

>
> You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence, you must be
> talking about yourself.
>
> Not one person has provided proof!
>
> NOTE: a picture of a small non-scorched airplane piece is not proof. It
> could have been easily places there by someone.

Maybe that picture I saw of a big honkin airplane engine cover might be proof
enough.


Not to mention any number of people who SAW it hit.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article <C6yLf.4487$Sp2.232@fed1read02>,
on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:57:31 -0700,
khobar attempted to say .....

> flying saucer piloted by giant lizards

Snort.

Everyone knows the flying saucers belong to the Grey's

The lizard men fly the cigar shaped UFO's

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:26:15 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

> Untrue, and I can demonstrate that here:
>
>
> Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-6A2D32.09511624022006
> @news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> > In article >,
> > TRUTH > wrote:
> >
> >> You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence,
> >
> > ...aside from the *hundreds* of eyewitnesses (it flew over a crowded
> > freeway on the way in),
>
>
>
> First of all, many people reported seeing a plane that looked nothing
> like a 757. (They reported a much smaller plane.)

Many people don't know a B757 from a B737


>
> Second, if one could say that the FDNY personnel acounts of flashes,
> explosions, bombs at the WTC (that they compared to conrolled
> demoltions!) are unreliable, then the same could be said for any
> eyewitnesses who think they saw a 757 fly near the Pentagon. Fire
> department personnel may not be experts in controlled demolitions, but
> they sure as hell know more about it than the "average joe" knows about
> airplanes.

You just discredited your own comment above.



> Third, where exactly did you hear that *hundreds* of eyewitnesses
> reported a 757 at the Pentagon? Do you have a URL for this?

I don't have that info.
I'm sure someone interested in the TRUTH would be looking for it.


> > the light poles knocked over by the plane on
> > approach,
>
>
> easily accomlished by a small drone

Umm, not hardly.



> the missing commercial flight (it was a regularly scheduled
> > flight, and never landed anywhere else),
>
>
> Could have landed at a military base. Or, may God help them, shot down
> over the Atlantic

Sure. Now you are just making things up.
So where did the people go if it landed at some military base ?
And what do you do about all the airmen who would have witnesed such a landing.



> the actual physical debris
> > (yes, it was there, and yes, it was in the colors used by that
> airline),
>
>
> If you're referring to this
> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg
>
> It was easily dropped by someone involved.

A disconnected picture.
Please reference http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm



> Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
> passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
> incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?

Body parts.




>
>
> > and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
> > commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per hour...
>
>
> That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for yourself

I have.
Looks like an aircraft hit to me.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:08:01 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....


> Where is the evidence that a 757 hit the pentagon? Which of the links did
> I post that says this? Please tell me

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:
>
> Hmmmm. that's interesting. Yeah I did post that link, I got it from
> somewhere without checking into it first, but the information is quite
> interesting and am going to read though it. I understand what you mean
> now.
>
> I will read through it carefully later, but wanted to point out that
> there are lots of opinions on 9/11, and not all of them will be true. For
> instance, some people still believe in holligrams and no planes at the
> WTC

You are not only stupid, but too lazy to read the first page of the
websites you link to. Now, please clarify. Do you believe that there was
or was not a 757 at the Pentagon? Or, are you saying there was a plane,
but not a 757? Its like you arguing that there were no hijackings, but
posted a link to an article that stated Bush knew about the hijackings
in advance.

[mrtravel]

Tank Fixer wrote:

>
>
>
>> the missing commercial flight (it was a regularly scheduled
>>
>>>flight, and never landed anywhere else),
>>
>>
>>Could have landed at a military base. Or, may God help them, shot down
>>over the Atlantic
>
>
> Sure. Now you are just making things up.
> So where did the people go if it landed at some military base ?
> And what do you do about all the airmen who would have witnesed such a landing.

This one's easy.
They are saving them up until they get about 4400.
Then, you will see them again.

[Dan]

Tank Fixer wrote:
> In article >,
> on Fri, 24 Feb 2006 04:05:43 GMT,
> TRUTH attempted to say .....
>
>> You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence, you must be
>> talking about yourself.
>>
>> Not one person has provided proof!
>>
>> NOTE: a picture of a small non-scorched airplane piece is not proof. It
>> could have been easily places there by someone.
>
> Maybe that picture I saw of a big honkin airplane engine cover might be proof
> enough.
>
>
> Not to mention any number of people who SAW it hit.
>

And no one was seen placing airplane parts, some too big for a single
man to carry, at the scene. Now let's sit back and see what his next lie
is :)

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[khobar]

"mrtravel" > wrote in message
. com...
> TRUTH wrote:
> >
> > Hmmmm. that's interesting. Yeah I did post that link, I got it from
> > somewhere without checking into it first, but the information is quite
> > interesting and am going to read though it. I understand what you mean
> > now.
> >
> > I will read through it carefully later, but wanted to point out that
> > there are lots of opinions on 9/11, and not all of them will be true.
For
> > instance, some people still believe in holligrams and no planes at the
> > WTC
>
> You are not only stupid, but too lazy to read the first page of the
> websites you link to. Now, please clarify. Do you believe that there was
> or was not a 757 at the Pentagon? Or, are you saying there was a plane,
> but not a 757? Its like you arguing that there were no hijackings, but
> posted a link to an article that stated Bush knew about the hijackings
> in advance.

Yes, all of the above.

Paul Nixon

[Matt Barrow]

The last I heard of BYU physics department was those two bozos that did a
press conference annoncing they'd solved cold fusion.

[Dan]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> The last I heard of BYU physics department was those two bozos that did a
> press conference annoncing they'd solved cold fusion.
>
>

I saw an example of cold fusion a month ago. Two cars had a head on
collision with an estimated closing speed of 140 mph. It was in the
lower 30s Fahrenheit and the cars were pretty well fused together.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Logajan]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> The last I heard of BYU physics department was those two bozos that
> did a press conference annoncing they'd solved cold fusion.

That's incorrect. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman (P & F) did their work
at the University of Utah - not BYU. Steven Jones did his work at Brigham
Young University. P & F's cold fusion attempts utilized palladium
catalysis. Jones' cold fusion attempts utilized muon-catalyzed fusion. The
two mechanisms have nothing in common except the name "cold fusion". Muon-
catalyzed fusion was predicted decades ago and has been observed in the lab
- the only issue under contention is whether the muons can last long enough
to induce enough fusion events to offset the energy needed to create the
muons.

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>> The last I heard of BYU physics department was those two bozos that
>> did a press conference annoncing they'd solved cold fusion.
>
> That's incorrect. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman (P & F) did their
> work
> at the University of Utah - not BYU.

Oh!

> Steven Jones did his work at Brigham
> Young University. P & F's cold fusion attempts utilized palladium
> catalysis. Jones' cold fusion attempts utilized muon-catalyzed fusion. The
> two mechanisms have nothing in common except the name "cold fusion". Muon-
> catalyzed fusion was predicted decades ago and has been observed in the
> lab
> - the only issue under contention is whether the muons can last long
> enough
> to induce enough fusion events to offset the energy needed to create the
> muons.
>

Oh!

He's still full of it!

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 07:38:12 -0700,
Matt Barrow attempted to say .....

>
> The last I heard of BYU physics department was those two bozos that did a
> press conference annoncing they'd solved cold fusion.

Which happens to be Jones's field ....

Makes you go, Hmmmmmm ???

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article <QyRMf.55287$Ug4.52742@dukeread12>,
on Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:52:10 -0600,
Dan attempted to say .....

> Tank Fixer wrote:
> > In article >,
> > on Fri, 24 Feb 2006 04:05:43 GMT,
> > TRUTH attempted to say .....
> >
> >> You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence, you must be
> >> talking about yourself.
> >>
> >> Not one person has provided proof!
> >>
> >> NOTE: a picture of a small non-scorched airplane piece is not proof. It
> >> could have been easily places there by someone.
> >
> > Maybe that picture I saw of a big honkin airplane engine cover might be proof
> > enough.
> >
> >
> > Not to mention any number of people who SAW it hit.
> >
>
> And no one was seen placing airplane parts, some too big for a single
> man to carry, at the scene. Now let's sit back and see what his next lie
> is :)

They are amusing.....

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.