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

[Frank F. Matthews]

You should mention that he is primarily an expert in Cold Fusion &
Christ's visit to America. He is neither an expert on materials or
demolition.

TRUTH wrote:
> Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds of
> people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
> events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed on Google
> Video, or downloaded to your computer.
>
>
> The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:
>
> "I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU
> on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and
> scientific arguments for the controlled demolition theory. In attendance
> were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering,
> Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and
> perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people
> present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah
> Valley State College).
>
> The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only
> when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material
> summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the
> collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, only one attendee disagreed (by hand-
> vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for.
> The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about
> it and now agreed that more investigation was needed."
>
>
>
> Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding are
> based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.
>
> In other words, you won't find any people using terms like kook, tin foil
> hat, or any other childish terms. The people who understand his
> scientific evidence are clear minded and not closed asshole headed like a
> lot of people in this newsgroup seem to be. You people are pathetic.
>
>
> You stupid people don't know anything about anything when it comes to
> 9/11.
>
> The airplanes were flown by remote control. The events were for the
> purpose of building public support to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Some
> of you will still deny this fact. If so, it will be because your thinking
> process is too much filled with tin foil hat commments, and you're too
> stupid and brainwashed to understand real evidence

[TRUTH]

Those facta have no bearing on this at all.

The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.

The idea that the Towers could collapse at near free fall speed from fire
is absurd.

How did the 47 MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS in the Towers severe? And HOW did
they ALL severe at the SAME TIME?



"Frank F. Matthews" > wrote in
:

> You should mention that he is primarily an expert in Cold Fusion &
> Christ's visit to America. He is neither an expert on materials or
> demolition.
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>> Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to
>> hundreds of people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the
>> government's version of events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar
>> can be viewed on Google Video, or downloaded to your computer.
>>
>>
>> The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:
>>
>> "I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at
>> BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed
>> evidence and scientific arguments for the controlled demolition
>> theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical
>> Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology,
>> Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not
>> recognize all of the people present. A local university and college
>> were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College).
>>
>> The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended
>> only when a university class needed the room. After presenting the
>> material summarized here, including actually looking at and
>> discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, only one attendee
>> disagreed (by hand- vote) that further investigation of the WTC
>> collapses was called for. The next day, the dissenting professor
>> said he had further thought about it and now agreed that more
>> investigation was needed."
>>
>>
>>
>> Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding
>> are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.
>>
>> In other words, you won't find any people using terms like kook, tin
>> foil hat, or any other childish terms. The people who understand his
>> scientific evidence are clear minded and not closed asshole headed
>> like a lot of people in this newsgroup seem to be. You people are
>> pathetic.
>>
>>
>> You stupid people don't know anything about anything when it comes to
>> 9/11.
>>
>> The airplanes were flown by remote control. The events were for the
>> purpose of building public support to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
>> Some of you will still deny this fact. If so, it will be because your
>> thinking process is too much filled with tin foil hat commments, and
>> you're too stupid and brainwashed to understand real evidence
>

[Frank F. Matthews]

Well they do connect to the question of his credibility.

TRUTH wrote:

> Those facta have no bearing on this at all.
>
> The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.
>
> The idea that the Towers could collapse at near free fall speed from fire
> is absurd.
>
> How did the 47 MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS in the Towers severe? And HOW did
> they ALL severe at the SAME TIME?
>
>
>
> "Frank F. Matthews" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>You should mention that he is primarily an expert in Cold Fusion &
>>Christ's visit to America. He is neither an expert on materials or
>>demolition.
>>
>>TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>>Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to
>>>hundreds of people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the
>>>government's version of events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar
>>>can be viewed on Google Video, or downloaded to your computer.
>>>
>>>
>>>The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:
>>>
>>>"I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at
>>>BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed
>>>evidence and scientific arguments for the controlled demolition
>>>theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical
>>>Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology,
>>>Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not
>>>recognize all of the people present. A local university and college
>>>were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College).
>>>
>>>The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended
>>>only when a university class needed the room. After presenting the
>>>material summarized here, including actually looking at and
>>>discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, only one attendee
>>>disagreed (by hand- vote) that further investigation of the WTC
>>>collapses was called for. The next day, the dissenting professor
>>>said he had further thought about it and now agreed that more
>>>investigation was needed."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding
>>>are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.
>>>
>>>In other words, you won't find any people using terms like kook, tin
>>>foil hat, or any other childish terms. The people who understand his
>>>scientific evidence are clear minded and not closed asshole headed
>>>like a lot of people in this newsgroup seem to be. You people are
>>>pathetic.
>>>
>>>
>>>You stupid people don't know anything about anything when it comes to
>>>9/11.
>>>
>>>The airplanes were flown by remote control. The events were for the
>>>purpose of building public support to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
>>>Some of you will still deny this fact. If so, it will be because your
>>>thinking process is too much filled with tin foil hat commments, and
>>>you're too stupid and brainwashed to understand real evidence
>>
>

[Mike]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:36:03 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>Those facta have no bearing on this at all.
>
>The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.
>
>The idea that the Towers could collapse at near free fall speed from fire
>is absurd.
>
Explain why. After the initial accelleration of the upper floors, the
forces applied on the lower floors would be much greater than they
were designed for. Thus, the lower portion of the building would
provide little resistance and allow for a quick collapse.

>How did the 47 MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS in the Towers severe? And HOW did
>they ALL severe at the SAME TIME?
>
>
Fact: A large number of the exterior columns were severed by the
impact.
Fact: Fire (heat) weakens steel even without the steel melting and
becoing fluid.
Fact: The columns did not all fail at the same time. The south
tower's top floors tilted proir to collapse. The north tower's
interior columns failed first. Several of the columns were severed by
the impact of the planes. The loads that were no longer being
supported by the severed columns were transferred to other columns.
Those columns were then weakened by fire. When the stress became too
great for the just one of the remianing columns, it failed. This
transferred more load to the remaining columns causing them to become
overstressed one by one in rapid succession. This caused the top
portion of the building to begin to drop onto the lower portion and
subsequently "pancake" the lower floors.

[TRUTH]

Mike > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:36:03 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>
>>Those facta have no bearing on this at all.
>>
>>The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.
>>
>>The idea that the Towers could collapse at near free fall speed from
>>fire is absurd.
>>
> Explain why. After the initial accelleration of the upper floors, the
> forces applied on the lower floors would be much greater than they
> were designed for. Thus, the lower portion of the building would
> provide little resistance and allow for a quick collapse.
>
>>How did the 47 MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS in the Towers severe? And HOW did
>>they ALL severe at the SAME TIME?
>>
>>
> Fact: A large number of the exterior columns were severed by the
> impact.
> Fact: Fire (heat) weakens steel even without the steel melting and
> becoing fluid.
> Fact: The columns did not all fail at the same time. The south
> tower's top floors tilted proir to collapse. The north tower's
> interior columns failed first. Several of the columns were severed by
> the impact of the planes. The loads that were no longer being
> supported by the severed columns were transferred to other columns.
> Those columns were then weakened by fire. When the stress became too
> great for the just one of the remianing columns, it failed. This
> transferred more load to the remaining columns causing them to become
> overstressed one by one in rapid succession. This caused the top
> portion of the building to begin to drop onto the lower portion and
> subsequently "pancake" the lower floors.


...................
Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and Co Author of “Why Buildings Fall
Down”

Levy has stated in the past that fire brought down the WTC buildings on
9/11. But it is interesting that he also made a public statement saying
the WTC collapses resembled controlled demolition. (Matthys Levy was/is a
representative for Weidlinger Associates; a company hired by WTC
leaseholder Larry Silverstein to help prove to his insurers that the
failures of the Towers were the result of two separate terrorist attacks,
and therefore allow Silverstein to double his insurance payout.)

"It was the fire ... causing the failure of the steel columns and that
caused the collapse"
http://wcbs880.com/topstories/topstoriesny_story_113150328.html

"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a
building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they
cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly
what it looked like and that's what happened."
Video: www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html
...................




Mike, PLEASE give me your professional opinion on WTC 7. Be sure to watch
all the video clips here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://tinyurl.com/eygeh

[TRUTH]

Mike, also please note these quotes from the New York Fire Department




----------------------------------------------------------------

The following are ten quotes from the WTC Task Force Interviews "Oral
Histories" as published in the New York Times.

See here for many more quotes, and links to the Times website
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820



FDNY CAPTAIN:
"Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center, there was this
orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then
this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that
building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping
sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the
building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides
as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were
getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."



FDNY BATTALION CHIEF:
"It looked like it was a timed explosion"



FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER:
"I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came
down."

Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire
was?"

A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish
a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's
what I thought I saw"



FDNY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER:
"We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw
was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people
thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember
seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the
building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse
like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My
initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they
show you those implosions on TV."



FDNY FIRE MARSHAL:
"I thought it was exploding, actually. That’s what I thought for hours
afterwards, that it had exploded or the plane or there had been some
device on the plane that had exploded, because the debris from the tower
had shot out far over our heads"



FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER:
"I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that
the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the
building."

"As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the
building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive"



FDNY CHIEF:
"You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like
a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one
and a half floors pop out. It looked almost like an explosion. The whole
top was teetering, and I really thought just the top of the building was
falling off."



FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed
like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction,
then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a
pancake."

Q. "where was the fire? Like up at the upper levels where it started
collapsing?"

A. "It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe twenty floors below the
impact area of the plane. I saw it as fire and when I looked at it on
television afterwards, it doesn't appear to show the fire. It shows a
rush of smoke coming out below the area of the plane impact. The reason
why I think the cameras didn't get that image is because they were a far
distance away and maybe I saw the bottom side where the plane was and the
smoke was up above it."



FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on
television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all
the way around like a belt, all these explosions"



FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"There was an explosion at the top of the Trade Center and a piece of
Trade Center flew across the West Side Highway and hit the Financial
Center." ... "the south tower from our perspective exploded from about
midway up the building." ... "At that point a debate began to rage
because the perception was that the building looked like it had been
taken out with charges"

[HankC]

TRUTH wrote:

Just out of curiousity, what does the professor think of the plane that
hit the Pentagon and the one that went down in Shanksville? and the
people on those flights who are missing but their voices were
synthesized?


HankC


> Mike, also please note these quotes from the New York Fire Department
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The following are ten quotes from the WTC Task Force Interviews "Oral
> Histories" as published in the New York Times.
>
> See here for many more quotes, and links to the Times website
> http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
>
>
>
> FDNY CAPTAIN:
> "Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center, there was this
> orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then
> this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that
> building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping
> sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the
> building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides
> as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were
> getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."
>
>
>
> FDNY BATTALION CHIEF:
> "It looked like it was a timed explosion"
>
>
>
> FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER:
> "I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came
> down."
>
> Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire
> was?"
>
> A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish
> a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's
> what I thought I saw"
>
>
>
> FDNY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER:
> "We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw
> was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people
> thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember
> seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the
> building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse
> like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My
> initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they
> show you those implosions on TV."
>
>
>
> FDNY FIRE MARSHAL:
> "I thought it was exploding, actually. That's what I thought for hours
> afterwards, that it had exploded or the plane or there had been some
> device on the plane that had exploded, because the debris from the tower
> had shot out far over our heads"
>
>
>
> FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER:
> "I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that
> the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the
> building."
>
> "As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the
> building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive"
>
>
>
> FDNY CHIEF:
> "You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like
> a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one
> and a half floors pop out. It looked almost like an explosion. The whole
> top was teetering, and I really thought just the top of the building was
> falling off."
>
>
>
> FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
> "I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed
> like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction,
> then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a
> pancake."
>
> Q. "where was the fire? Like up at the upper levels where it started
> collapsing?"
>
> A. "It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe twenty floors below the
> impact area of the plane. I saw it as fire and when I looked at it on
> television afterwards, it doesn't appear to show the fire. It shows a
> rush of smoke coming out below the area of the plane impact. The reason
> why I think the cameras didn't get that image is because they were a far
> distance away and maybe I saw the bottom side where the plane was and the
> smoke was up above it."
>
>
>
> FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
> "I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on
> television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all
> the way around like a belt, all these explosions"
>
>
>
> FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
> "There was an explosion at the top of the Trade Center and a piece of
> Trade Center flew across the West Side Highway and hit the Financial
> Center." ... "the south tower from our perspective exploded from about
> midway up the building." ... "At that point a debate began to rage
> because the perception was that the building looked like it had been
> taken out with charges"

[TRUTH]

I find it very interesting how no one is countering any of the real
evidence. Everyone must be afraid, since they know they can't. They just
stick with the more easily debunkable material, and they claimed they
debunked everything.

You think you know about 9/11? Then debunk Jones' 17 reasons. You think you
have the slightest clue about what happened on 9/11? Prove it!


From Jones' paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

"Seventeen reasons for advancing the controlled-demolition hypothesis while
challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are delineated
here. (No rebuttal can be complete, of course, unless it addresses all of
these points.)"

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:IllLf.23582$Ug4.1739@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> I find it very interesting how no one is countering any of the real
>> evidence. Everyone must be afraid, since they know they can't. They
>> just stick with the more easily debunkable material, and they claimed
>> they debunked everything.
>>
>> You think you know about 9/11? Then debunk Jones' 17 reasons. You
>> think you have the slightest clue about what happened on 9/11? Prove
>> it!
>>
>>
>> From Jones' paper:
>> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>>
>> "Seventeen reasons for advancing the controlled-demolition hypothesis
>> while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are
>> delineated here. (No rebuttal can be complete, of course, unless it
>> addresses all of these points.)"
>>
>>
>>
> Again you bring this "peer reviewed paper" up as if you wave it
> often
> enough it becomes the truth. It has been debunked here and by faculty
> in his own school. Keep trying, I bet you will find tens of people
> world wide who will believe you.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>



This is the 3rd time I'm asking you: point me to the thread and I will
read it

[Mike]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:50:37 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>Mike > wrote in
:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:36:03 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>>
>>>Those facta have no bearing on this at all.
>>>
>>>The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.
>>>
>>>The idea that the Towers could collapse at near free fall speed from
>>>fire is absurd.
>>>
>> Explain why. After the initial accelleration of the upper floors, the
>> forces applied on the lower floors would be much greater than they
>> were designed for. Thus, the lower portion of the building would
>> provide little resistance and allow for a quick collapse.
>>
>>>How did the 47 MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS in the Towers severe? And HOW did
>>>they ALL severe at the SAME TIME?
>>>
>>>
>> Fact: A large number of the exterior columns were severed by the
>> impact.
>> Fact: Fire (heat) weakens steel even without the steel melting and
>> becoing fluid.
>> Fact: The columns did not all fail at the same time. The south
>> tower's top floors tilted proir to collapse. The north tower's
>> interior columns failed first. Several of the columns were severed by
>> the impact of the planes. The loads that were no longer being
>> supported by the severed columns were transferred to other columns.
>> Those columns were then weakened by fire. When the stress became too
>> great for the just one of the remianing columns, it failed. This
>> transferred more load to the remaining columns causing them to become
>> overstressed one by one in rapid succession. This caused the top
>> portion of the building to begin to drop onto the lower portion and
>> subsequently "pancake" the lower floors.
>
>
>..................
>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.)
>
The collapse can certainly resemble a controlled demolition, without
actually being a controlled demolition. The WTC suffered from a
progressive collapse. Controlled demolitions also use progressive
collapse to bring down buildings. Therefore the statement that "the
WTC collapses resembled controlled demolition" really isn't all that
interesting.

>"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
>..................
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in controlled demolitions,
they do not cause the failure of all of the columns simultaneously.
The charges are triggered with time delays to be certain that the
building falls in the desired location.

>
>
>
>
>Mike, PLEASE give me your professional opinion on WTC 7. Be sure to watch
>all the video clips here:
>
>http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
>http://tinyurl.com/eygeh

[HankC]

TRUTH wrote:
> "HankC" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> >
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> > Just out of curiousity, what does the professor think of the plane
> > that hit the Pentagon and the one that went down in Shanksville? and
> > the people on those flights who are missing but their voices were
> > synthesized?
> >
> >
> > HankC
>
>
>
> You'll have to ask him that.

Perhaps you can explain how it fits into *your* conspiracy theory?


HankC

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:

> "HankC" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
>
>>TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>Just out of curiousity, what does the professor think of the plane
>>that hit the Pentagon and the one that went down in Shanksville? and
>>the people on those flights who are missing but their voices were
>>synthesized?
>>
>>
>>HankC
>
>
>
>
> You'll have to ask him that.

I don't know about the professor, but TRUTH posted his view previously.
It was a small military plane and not a 757 at the Pentagon, and the 757
passengers died elsewhere.

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:IllLf.23582$Ug4.1739@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> I find it very interesting how no one is countering any of the real
>>> evidence. Everyone must be afraid, since they know they can't. They
>>> just stick with the more easily debunkable material, and they claimed
>>> they debunked everything.
>>>
>>> You think you know about 9/11? Then debunk Jones' 17 reasons. You
>>> think you have the slightest clue about what happened on 9/11? Prove
>>> it!
>>>
>>>
>>> From Jones' paper:
>>> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>>>
>>> "Seventeen reasons for advancing the controlled-demolition hypothesis
>>> while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are
>>> delineated here. (No rebuttal can be complete, of course, unless it
>>> addresses all of these points.)"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Again you bring this "peer reviewed paper" up as if you wave it
>> often
>> enough it becomes the truth. It has been debunked here and by faculty
>> in his own school. Keep trying, I bet you will find tens of people
>> world wide who will believe you.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>
>
>
> This is the 3rd time I'm asking you: point me to the thread and I will
> read it

And I will tell you for the second time start with this thread. Do try
to stay focused.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:
>
> 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.

Do you read what you write?

You wrote: "stated..that fire" and "saying...resembled"

Do you recognize the difference stating something occured and saying it
resembled something else. Your statement does not say it was controlled
demolition, just that it resembled this.

(Matthys Levy

> "It was the fire ... causing the failure of the steel columns and that
> caused the collapse"
> http://wcbs880.com/topstories/topstoriesny_story_113150328.html

Wow, more evidence that it was "fire" and not the explosives you have
claimed.

>
> "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."

"Looking like something" doesn't make it the same thing.

[TRUTH]

"HankC" > wrote in news:1140726364.857237.286280
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> TRUTH wrote:
>> "HankC" > wrote in
>> oups.com:
>>
>> >
>> > TRUTH wrote:
>> >
>> > Just out of curiousity, what does the professor think of the plane
>> > that hit the Pentagon and the one that went down in Shanksville? and
>> > the people on those flights who are missing but their voices were
>> > synthesized?
>> >
>> >
>> > HankC
>>
>>
>>
>> You'll have to ask him that.
>
> Perhaps you can explain how it fits into *your* conspiracy theory?
>
>
> HankC
>
>

I aleady did. Read my previous posts

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in
. com:

> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Do you read what you write?
>
> You wrote: "stated..that fire" and "saying...resembled"
>
> Do you recognize the difference stating something occured and saying
> it resembled something else. Your statement does not say it was
> controlled demolition, just that it resembled this.
>
> (Matthys Levy
>
>> "It was the fire ... causing the failure of the steel columns and
>> that caused the collapse"
>> http://wcbs880.com/topstories/topstoriesny_story_113150328.html
>
> Wow, more evidence that it was "fire" and not the explosives you have
> claimed.
>
>>
>> "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."
>
> "Looking like something" doesn't make it the same thing.
>


Do you think the someone from the leaseholders insurance company is gonna
come out and say the building WAS professionaly demolished? How about
some common sense here???

Besides, the leaseholder himself, Larry Silverstein, said on camera, that
WTC7 was "pulled"

[TRUTH]

Mike > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:50:37 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>
>>Mike > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:36:03 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Those facta have no bearing on this at all.
>>>>
>>>>The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.
>>>>
>>>>The idea that the Towers could collapse at near free fall speed from
>>>>fire is absurd.
>>>>
>>> Explain why. After the initial accelleration of the upper floors,
>>> the forces applied on the lower floors would be much greater than
>>> they were designed for. Thus, the lower portion of the building
>>> would provide little resistance and allow for a quick collapse.
>>>
>>>>How did the 47 MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS in the Towers severe? And HOW
>>>>did they ALL severe at the SAME TIME?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Fact: A large number of the exterior columns were severed by the
>>> impact.
>>> Fact: Fire (heat) weakens steel even without the steel melting and
>>> becoing fluid.
>>> Fact: The columns did not all fail at the same time. The south
>>> tower's top floors tilted proir to collapse. The north tower's
>>> interior columns failed first. Several of the columns were severed
>>> by the impact of the planes. The loads that were no longer being
>>> supported by the severed columns were transferred to other columns.
>>> Those columns were then weakened by fire. When the stress became
>>> too great for the just one of the remianing columns, it failed.
>>> This transferred more load to the remaining columns causing them to
>>> become overstressed one by one in rapid succession. This caused the
>>> top portion of the building to begin to drop onto the lower portion
>>> and subsequently "pancake" the lower floors.
>>
>>
>>..................
>>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.)
>>
> The collapse can certainly resemble a controlled demolition, without
> actually being a controlled demolition. The WTC suffered from a
> progressive collapse. Controlled demolitions also use progressive
> collapse to bring down buildings. Therefore the statement that "the
> WTC collapses resembled controlled demolition" really isn't all that
> interesting.


Well, it looks like controlled demolitions, all the facts easily support
controlled demolitions, the government provided no real investigation, so
why believe that it wasn't controlled demolitions?



>
>>"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
>>..................
> I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in controlled demolitions,
> they do not cause the failure of all of the columns simultaneously.
> The charges are triggered with time delays to be certain that the
> building falls in the desired location.


So, the structural engineer who billionare Larry Silverstein hired is
wrong, and you are right. I see.



>>
>>
>>Mike, PLEASE give me your professional opinion on WTC 7. Be sure to
>>watch all the video clips here:
>>
>>http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
>>http://tinyurl.com/eygeh
>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> So, the structural engineer who billionare Larry Silverstein hired is
> wrong, and you are right. I see.

Actually, Silverstein (the guy who leased the WTC) hired an engineer o
show that the failure of the buildings was due to the attacks, and not
due to faulty construction (that was important to his insurance claims
for the buildings).

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Besides, the leaseholder himself, Larry Silverstein, said on camera,
> that WTC7 was "pulled"

No, he said to "pull it," meaning "pull the firefighters out of the
building, there's been enough loss of life already and we're not going
to save it."

[Mike]

>>>"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
>>>..................
>> I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in controlled demolitions,
>> they do not cause the failure of all of the columns simultaneously.
>> The charges are triggered with time delays to be certain that the
>> building falls in the desired location.
>
>
>So, the structural engineer who billionare Larry Silverstein hired is
>wrong, and you are right. I see.
>
>
As you should see. The engineer hired by Larry Silverman is wrong.
See these videos of a controlled demolitions.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/jlhudson.mpg
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/kingdome.mpg
Clearly in these videos, the charges are not set off simultaneously,
but rather incrementally in order to get the building to fall in the
desired location.

[TRUTH]

Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-3446F2.09584524022006
@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> Besides, the leaseholder himself, Larry Silverstein, said on camera,
>> that WTC7 was "pulled"
>
> No, he said to "pull it," meaning "pull the firefighters out of the
> building, there's been enough loss of life already and we're not going
> to save it."
>



He didn't say pull "them", he said pull "it".


Here's the video clip of Silverstein from the PBS documentary:
http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV

In the same documentary a clean up worker uses the term "pull" when
preparing for the controlled demolition of Building 6:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/pull_wtc6.wmv



According to employees of NIST and FEMA, there were no firefighters in
the building. See here....
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/silverstein_answers_wtc7
_charges.htm

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-3446F2.09584524022006
> @news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> > In article >,
> > TRUTH > wrote:
> >
> >> Besides, the leaseholder himself, Larry Silverstein, said on camera,
> >> that WTC7 was "pulled"
> >
> > No, he said to "pull it," meaning "pull the firefighters out of the
> > building, there's been enough loss of life already and we're not going
> > to save it."
>
> He didn't say pull "them", he said pull "it".

You need to learn more about how the English language works.

[[email protected]]

TRUTH wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Well, it looks like controlled demolitions, all the facts easily support
> controlled demolitions, the government provided no real investigation, so
> why believe that it wasn't controlled demolitions?
>

It does NOT look like a controlled demolition. No now who has
seen fooptage of both and paid attention would think they
looked like each other.

The WTC towers collapsed from the top down, controlled demolitions
collapse from the bottom up.

Aside from the fact that it does NOT look a controlled demolition,
the absence of any witnesses who saw preparations for demolition
is ANOTHER good reason to not believe it. Consider, for example,
that for a controlled demolition much the structural steel is cut
through
at the point where the explosives are placed so that the explosives
will reliably finish severing them.

--

FF

[TRUTH]

wrote in
ups.com:

>
> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Well, it looks like controlled demolitions, all the facts easily
>> support controlled demolitions, the government provided no real
>> investigation, so why believe that it wasn't controlled demolitions?
>>
>
> It does NOT look like a controlled demolition. No now who has
> seen fooptage of both and paid attention would think they
> looked like each other.
>
> The WTC towers collapsed from the top down, controlled demolitions
> collapse from the bottom up.
>
> Aside from the fact that it does NOT look a controlled demolition,
> the absence of any witnesses who saw preparations for demolition
> is ANOTHER good reason to not believe it. Consider, for example,
> that for a controlled demolition much the structural steel is cut
> through
> at the point where the explosives are placed so that the explosives
> will reliably finish severing them.
>


Sorry, but it does. Numerous engineering have said that the collapses
resemble controlled demolitions. And that includes the strucural engineer
hired by the WTC leaseholder's insurance company:

Video link of him saying it is here:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

[Peter Twydell]

In message >, TRUTH
> writes
wrote in
ups.com:
>
>>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Well, it looks like controlled demolitions, all the facts easily
>>> support controlled demolitions, the government provided no real
>>> investigation, so why believe that it wasn't controlled demolitions?
>>>
>>
>> It does NOT look like a controlled demolition. No now who has
>> seen fooptage of both and paid attention would think they
>> looked like each other.
>>
>> The WTC towers collapsed from the top down, controlled demolitions
>> collapse from the bottom up.
>>
>> Aside from the fact that it does NOT look a controlled demolition,
>> the absence of any witnesses who saw preparations for demolition
>> is ANOTHER good reason to not believe it. Consider, for example,
>> that for a controlled demolition much the structural steel is cut
>> through
>> at the point where the explosives are placed so that the explosives
>> will reliably finish severing them.
>>
>
>
>Sorry, but it does. Numerous engineering have said that the collapses
>resemble controlled demolitions. And that includes the strucural engineer
>hired by the WTC leaseholder's insurance company:
>
My dad resembled his cousin Bob. Wasn't him, though. Two separate people
with similar faces.

Resemble \= is
Similar \= same

Get a grip (no, not on that, you'll go even more blind than you are
already)

>Video link of him saying it is here:
>http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> wrote in
> ups.com:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Well, it looks like controlled demolitions, all the facts easily
>>> support controlled demolitions, the government provided no real
>>> investigation, so why believe that it wasn't controlled demolitions?
>>>
>> It does NOT look like a controlled demolition. No now who has
>> seen fooptage of both and paid attention would think they
>> looked like each other.
>>
>> The WTC towers collapsed from the top down, controlled demolitions
>> collapse from the bottom up.
>>
>> Aside from the fact that it does NOT look a controlled demolition,
>> the absence of any witnesses who saw preparations for demolition
>> is ANOTHER good reason to not believe it. Consider, for example,
>> that for a controlled demolition much the structural steel is cut
>> through
>> at the point where the explosives are placed so that the explosives
>> will reliably finish severing them.
>>
>
>
> Sorry, but it does. Numerous engineering have said that the collapses
> resemble controlled demolitions. And that includes the strucural engineer
> hired by the WTC leaseholder's insurance company:
>
> Video link of him saying it is here:
> http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

"Resembled" doesn't mean it was, OK? The fact remains there is NO
proof of "controlled demolition" of WTC1 or WTC2 and it's time you
admitted it. All you have is people telling you it looked like it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dave Holford]

TRUTH wrote:

> Sorry, but it does. Numerous engineering have said that the collapses
> resemble controlled demolitions. And that includes the strucural engineer
> hired by the WTC leaseholder's insurance company:
>

I resemble Jesus Christ, and Osama - I have the same body parts and same
general appearance. Resemble doesn't mean I'm either one.

But - didn't you say you were leaving?