Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11

[Wake UP!]

Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm



Also see Prof Jones updated paper (version 5.4)
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://st911.org

[Scott M. Kozel]

"Wake UP!" > wrote:
>
> Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm

That most likely is melting aluminum. It has been said to be likely
that aircraft wreckage piled up in that corner of the South Tower.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Wake UP!" > wrote:

> http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm


Well -- it looks to me like a runaway fire in the building, and escaping
to the outside. Thermite burns white The fire shown is red/yellow. There
was plenty of material in WTC to burn at all kinds of spectra --
aluminum, magnesium, titanium all burn uncontrollably in aircraft
crashes.

[Dan]

Wake UP! wrote:
> Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
>
>
>
> Also see Prof Jones updated paper (version 5.4)
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
>
> Scholars for 9/11 Truth
> http://st911.org

"Truth" is back under yet another name. Watch for demands for
scientific evidence, vulgarity etc.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Keith W]

"Wake UP!" > wrote in message
...
> Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
>

I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?

Keith

[Dan]

Keith W wrote:
> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
>> http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
>>
>
> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
>
> Keith
>
>

I told him that a few weeks ago.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[khobar]

"Keith W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> >
>
> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?

Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite isn't
used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har har har de har
har.

Paul Nixon

[george]

Dan wrote:
> Keith W wrote:
> > "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> >> http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> >>
> >
> > I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
> > aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
>
> I told him that a few weeks ago.
>
That's the trouble with the Walter Mittys of the world.
They take only what suits their fantasy world
still, it does make for fun watching kook1 morph into kook2

[Wake Up!]

"khobar" > wrote in news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:

> "Keith W" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
>> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
>> >
>>
>> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
>> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
>
> Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
> isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har har
> har de har har.
>
> Paul Nixon
>
>



As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were
those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

[Michael Ware]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
I love the way you deniers
> aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
> reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
> your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

What government conspiracy? Some turd hijacked a jet and flew it into a
building.

[Wake UP!]

excerpt from Dr Jones paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the
South WTC Tower shortly before its collapse:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863
&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11. The yellow color implies a molten-metal
temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the dark-
smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g.,
from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat
source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the
yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is in
fact ruled out with high probability. But molten iron with the
characteristics seen in this video is consistent with a thermite-reaction
attacking the steel columns in the Tower, thus weakening the building just
prior to its collapse, since thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-
white hot temperatures. (As some of the molten metal hits the side of the
building in the video clip above, note that the white-hot interior is
exposed.) The reader may wish to compare the dripping molten metal
observed on the corner of the South Tower just before its collapse with the
dripping molten metal from known thermite reactions:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm

[Scott M. Kozel]

"Wake UP!" > wrote:
>
> The yellow color implies a molten-metal
> temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the dark-
> smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g.,
> from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat
> source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the
> yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is in
> fact ruled out with high probability.

Bullcrap. Molten aluminum at about 1,100 to 1,200 F glows yellow
nicely, and if it was dribbling downward from where it was melting, you
would see much the same effect as in those photos.

[Wake Up!]

"Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in
:

> "Wake UP!" > wrote:
>>
>> The yellow color implies a molten-metal
>> temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the
>> dark- smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If
>> aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow
>> away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and
>> thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal.
>> Thus, molten aluminum is in fact ruled out with high probability.
>
> Bullcrap. Molten aluminum at about 1,100 to 1,200 F glows yellow
> nicely, and if it was dribbling downward from where it was melting,
> you would see much the same effect as in those photos.



If what you say is true, then consider emailing Dr Jones with your evidence
and he will certainly update his paper

[Jase Vanover]

Occam's Razor. Look it up.


"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
> "khobar" > wrote in news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
>
>> "Keith W" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
>>> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
>>> >
>>>
>>> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
>>> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
>>
>> Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
>> isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har har
>> har de har har.
>>
>> Paul Nixon
>>
>>
>
>
>
> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
> reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
> Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
> Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were
> those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
> aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
> reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
> your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

[mrtravel]

Wake Up! wrote:

> If what you say is true, then consider emailing Dr Jones with your evidence
> and he will certainly update his paper

LOL
It isn't too difficult for Dr Jones to actually research this himself

[Wake Up!]

mrtravel > wrote in
. com:

> Wake Up! wrote:
>
>> If what you say is true, then consider emailing Dr Jones with your
>> evidence and he will certainly update his paper
>
> LOL
> It isn't too difficult for Dr Jones to actually research this himself
>



Obviously, he did.

[mrtravel]

Wake Up! wrote:

> mrtravel > wrote in
> . com:
>
>
>>Wake Up! wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If what you say is true, then consider emailing Dr Jones with your
>>>evidence and he will certainly update his paper
>>
>>LOL
>>It isn't too difficult for Dr Jones to actually research this himself
>>

> Obviously, he did.

And yet he still came to the wrong conclusions, as did you

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:17:53 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....



> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
> reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
> Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
> Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were
> those three items present at the WTC? Yes.

Really, so you have PROOF of it I guess ?

> I love the way you deniers aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
> reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
> your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

It is called science.
Examine the facts and come to conclusions.

You might try it some time

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

[Wake Up!]

excerpt from Dr Jones' paper regarding experiment performed:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


We also noted that while a steel pan holding the aluminum glowed red and
then yellow hot, the molten aluminum inside retained its silvery-gray
color, adding significantly to the evidence that the yellow-white molten
metal dripping from the South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT
molten aluminum. (Recall also that the yellow color of the molten metal
(video clip above) implies a temperature of approximately 1100 oC -- too
high for the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires burning in the building.) This
is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high
reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear
silvery-gray, while molten iron (with its characteristic high emissivity)
will appear yellow-white (at ~1100 oC) as observed in the molten metal
dirpping from the South Tower just before its collapse

[Wake Up!]

Tank Fixer > wrote in
k.net:

> In article >,
> on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:17:53 GMT,
> Wake Up! attempted to say .....
>
>
>
>> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
>> a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
>> Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
>> the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
>> Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes.
>
> Really, so you have PROOF of it I guess ?


Of course not. That's why 20 yr experienced Physics Professor Steven
Jones PhD calls his paper a hypothesis.




>
>> I love the way you deniers aren't able to take everything into
>> context, and instead give silly reasons for each and every piece of
>> information, so you can hold on to your absurd government conspiracy
>> theory. LOL!!
>
> It is called science.
> Examine the facts and come to conclusions.
>
> You might try it some time


You obviously don't know the illogical/unrealistic steps the government
took to "prove" their absurd claims. You should consider looking into it
before commenting. Start by reading and understanding Jones' paper. Not
taking the time to do this demonstrates a predetermination to consider
controlled demolitions at the WTC implausible and not worth examining.
And if that's the case, I need not spend time responding further.

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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 02:48:43 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> k.net:
>
> > In article >,
> > on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:17:53 GMT,
> > Wake Up! attempted to say .....
> >
> >
> >
> >> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
> >> a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
> >> Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
> >> the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
> >> Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes.
> >
> > Really, so you have PROOF of it I guess ?
>
>
> Of course not. That's why 20 yr experienced Physics Professor Steven
> Jones PhD calls his paper a hypothesis.

But you claim it was present above ?
Which is it ?
Fact or theory ?


>
> >
> >> I love the way you deniers aren't able to take everything into
> >> context, and instead give silly reasons for each and every piece of
> >> information, so you can hold on to your absurd government conspiracy
> >> theory. LOL!!
> >
> > It is called science.
> > Examine the facts and come to conclusions.
> >
> > You might try it some time
>
>
> You obviously don't know the illogical/unrealistic steps the government
> took to "prove" their absurd claims. You should consider looking into it
> before commenting. Start by reading and understanding Jones' paper. Not
> taking the time to do this demonstrates a predetermination to consider
> controlled demolitions at the WTC implausible and not worth examining.
> And if that's the case, I need not spend time responding further.

I have read through "Dr" Jones paper.
He makes several leaps of imagination to put his theory together.
Dr Jones is imprecise in his use of terminology.


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

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

[Dan]

Wake Up! wrote:
> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> k.net:
>
>> In article >,
>> on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:17:53 GMT,
>> Wake Up! attempted to say .....
>>
>>
>>
>>> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
>>> a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
>>> Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
>>> the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
>>> Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes.
>> Really, so you have PROOF of it I guess ?
>
>
> Of course not. That's why 20 yr experienced Physics Professor Steven
> Jones PhD calls his paper a hypothesis.
>
>
>
>
>>> I love the way you deniers aren't able to take everything into
>>> context, and instead give silly reasons for each and every piece of
>>> information, so you can hold on to your absurd government conspiracy
>>> theory. LOL!!
>> It is called science.
>> Examine the facts and come to conclusions.
>>
>> You might try it some time
>
>
> You obviously don't know the illogical/unrealistic steps the government
> took to "prove" their absurd claims. You should consider looking into it
> before commenting. Start by reading and understanding Jones' paper. Not
> taking the time to do this demonstrates a predetermination to consider
> controlled demolitions at the WTC implausible and not worth examining.
> And if that's the case, I need not spend time responding further.
>
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

No matter how many times you change your name, no matter how many
times you present the same garbage, you still don't understand what you
are talking about and will still wind up throwing a tantrum and stomping
off. Please stop wasting your time and do some real research of your own.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[khobar]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
> excerpt from Dr Jones' paper regarding experiment performed:
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
>
> We also noted that while a steel pan holding the aluminum glowed red and
> then yellow hot, the molten aluminum inside retained its silvery-gray
> color, adding significantly to the evidence that the yellow-white molten
> metal dripping from the South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT
> molten aluminum. (Recall also that the yellow color of the molten metal
> (video clip above) implies a temperature of approximately 1100 oC -- too
> high for the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires burning in the building.) This
> is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high
> reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear
> silvery-gray, while molten iron (with its characteristic high emissivity)
> will appear yellow-white (at ~1100 oC) as observed in the molten metal
> dirpping from the South Tower just before its collapse

Prof. Jones sounds a lot like Cmdr. Donaldson, no disrespect intended to the
late Cmdr.

Paul Nixon

[khobar]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
> "khobar" > wrote in news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
>
> > "Keith W" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> >> >
> >>
> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
> >> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
> >
> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
> > isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har har
> > har de har har.
> >
> > Paul Nixon
> >
> >
>
>
>
> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
> reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
> Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
> Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were
> those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
> aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
> reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
> your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes. Can a
nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were these
three items present at the WTC? Yes.

Oops...

Paul Nixon

[Scott M. Kozel]

"Jase Vanover" > wrote:
>
> Occam's Razor. Look it up.

Brain Damage. Look it up.

> "Wake Up!" > wrote
>
> > As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
> > reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
> > Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
> > Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were
> > those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
> > aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
> > reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
> > your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:25:18 -0500,
Scott M. Kozel attempted to say .....

> "Jase Vanover" > wrote:
> >
> > Occam's Razor. Look it up.
>
> Brain Damage. Look it up.

Is that what the "Wake Up" is suffering from....


> > "Wake Up!" > wrote
> >
> > > As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
> > > reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
> > > Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
> > > Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were
> > > those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
> > > aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
> > > reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
> > > your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!
>

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

[Scott M. Kozel]

Tank Fixer > wrote:
>
> Scott M. Kozel attempted to say .....
> > "Jase Vanover" > wrote:
> >
> > > Occam's Razor. Look it up.
> >
> > Brain Damage. Look it up.
>
> Is that what the "Wake Up" is suffering from....

Most likely.


> > > "Wake Up!" > wrote
> > >
> > > > As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
> > > > reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
> > > > Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
> > > > Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were
> > > > those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
> > > > aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
> > > > reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
> > > > your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

[Johnny Bravo]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:17:53 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:

>As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
>reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.

Can other things partially evaporate steel? Yes.

One of those things is the steel catching on fire, with enough airflow and a
heat upwards of 1500 degrees, steel burns; in the absence of pure oxygen this
process will be uneven, resulting in partial burning (or evaporation). Flame
cutting is a machining process where steel is heated to the kindling temperature
with a torch, the torch is stopped and then the cut is blasted with oxygen,
nothing else. A continuous line can be cut to any length as the burn is
self-sustaining due to the massive heat released as steel burns, saving costs as
no fuel gas is expended during the cutting. In some cutting systems, propane is
used as a pre-heat gas, the same propane you use in a backyard barbecue grill.

But you've been told this before and you've ignored it before. Just not in
this particular newsgroup.

>Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
>Yes.

Could other things cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
Yes, jet fuel for one thing, a burning office building for another.

>Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.

Can other things cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.
Given 80 tons of aluminum and a massive building fire, I can cause all kinds of
dripping metal.

>Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes.

Correleation does not prove causation no more than the following is "proved".

Do ice cream sales go up in summer? Yes.
Do more people drown in summer? Yes.

Ice cream causes drownings.

But in your tiny little world, contrary evidence doesn't exist since you
started with a "fact" and only accept things which support that "fact" to
intrude on your own private reality.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:59:45 -0700, "khobar" > wrote:

>Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
>reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes. Can a
>nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were these
>three items present at the WTC? Yes.
>
>Oops...
>
>Paul Nixon

The amusing thing about that is that "TRUTH" presented a "paper" from a
"Finnish military expert" who claimed that the WTC was a controlled demolition.
"TRUTH" jumped on it like a drowning man clutches a life preserver. What
"TRUTH" didn't do was see exactly what this "miltiary expert" claimed as the
explosive in other pages on his site; tiny thermonuclear bombs, possibly ignited
by anti-matter.

[Wake Up!]

mrtravel > wrote in news:5MLQf.75273$PL5.59656
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

> Wake Up! wrote:
>
>> mrtravel > wrote in
>> . com:
>>
>>
>>>Wake Up! wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If what you say is true, then consider emailing Dr Jones with your
>>>>evidence and he will certainly update his paper
>>>
>>>LOL
>>>It isn't too difficult for Dr Jones to actually research this himself
>>>
>
>> Obviously, he did.
>
> And yet he still came to the wrong conclusions, as did you




and where is the evidence showing he came to the wrong conclusion? And
where is the evidence for your conclusion? Be specific.

[Wake Up!]

"khobar" > wrote in news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:

> "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "khobar" > wrote in
>> news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
>>
>> > "Keith W" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
>> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
>> >> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
>> >
>> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
>> > isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har
>> > har har de har har.
>> >
>> > Paul Nixon
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
>> a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
>> Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
>> the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
>> Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way
>> you deniers aren't able to take everything into context, and instead
>> give silly reasons for each and every piece of information, so you
>> can hold on to your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!
>
> Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
> reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes.
> Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.
> Were these three items present at the WTC? Yes.
>
> Oops...
>
> Paul Nixon
>
>



Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget that
hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters are
growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22 seminar,
he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new investigation.

[mrtravel]

Wake Up! wrote:

> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> k.net:
>
>
>>In article >,
>> on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:17:53 GMT,
>> Wake Up! attempted to say .....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
>>>a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
>>>Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
>>>the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
>>>Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes.
>>
>>Really, so you have PROOF of it I guess ?
>

> Of course not. That's why 20 yr experienced Physics Professor Steven
> Jones PhD calls his paper a hypothesis.
>

And it is also why NONE of his peers agree with him.

[mrtravel]

Jase Vanover wrote:

> Occam's Razor. Look it up.


In his mind, "the government did it" is the most logical explanation.

[mrtravel]

Johnny Bravo wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:59:45 -0700, "khobar" > wrote:
>
>
>>Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
>>reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes. Can a
>>nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were these
>>three items present at the WTC? Yes.
>>
>>Oops...
>>
>>Paul Nixon
>
>
> The amusing thing about that is that "TRUTH" presented a "paper" from a
> "Finnish military expert" who claimed that the WTC was a controlled demolition.
> "TRUTH" jumped on it like a drowning man clutches a life preserver. What
> "TRUTH" didn't do was see exactly what this "miltiary expert" claimed as the
> explosive in other pages on his site; tiny thermonuclear bombs, possibly ignited
> by anti-matter.
>

TRUTH has a habit of NOT reading the "proof" he posts.
Remember the article that indicated the "no plane" incident at the
Pentagon? It was from the "Truth" people, but claimed the "no plane"
stuff was a fraud to make the them look like crazy people, since all
evidence indicates there was a plane. TRUTH then back out saying he was
only trying to present different points of view on the government
conspiracy. Previously he was saying this was one "proof" of his view.

[mrtravel]

Wake Up! wrote:
>
> and where is the evidence showing he came to the wrong conclusion? And
> where is the evidence for your conclusion? Be specific.

There is plenty of evidence, you just choose to ignore anything/anyone
that doesn't agree with you. Remember the pilots that stated an
airliner could be flown by amateurs into the WTC. You ignored their
comments, didn't you?

Didn't you also say you were "finished" a long time ago when you posted
as TRUTH?

[mrtravel]

Wake Up! wrote:

>
>
> Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that?

Where is the evidence that it was thermite?
You posted a link to someone who claimed it was nuclear.
Are you going to claim you didn't read that either?
You have a habit of posting links as "proof" and then claiming these are
not your beliefs.


Let's not forget that
> hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters are
> growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22 seminar,
> he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new investigation.

Cite? Prior reviews of the same "evidence" have caused his peers to
regard him as "misinformed". Did new "evidence" come to light?

[Johnny Bravo]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:25:07 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:

>"khobar" > wrote in news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:
>
>> "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "khobar" > wrote in
>>> news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
>>>
>>> > "Keith W" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >>
>>> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
>>> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
>>> >> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
>>> >
>>> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
>>> > isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har
>>> > har har de har har.
>>> >
>>> > Paul Nixon
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
>>> a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
>>> Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
>>> the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
>>> Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way
>>> you deniers aren't able to take everything into context, and instead
>>> give silly reasons for each and every piece of information, so you
>>> can hold on to your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!
>>
>> Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
>> reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes.
>> Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.
>> Were these three items present at the WTC? Yes.
>>
>> Oops...
>>
>> Paul Nixon
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget that
>hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters are
>growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22 seminar,
>he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new investigation.

Faculty qualified to critique his scientific claims from such diverse fields
as psychology, psychiatry, economics, history, literature and politics.

Feel free to give me the name of ONE of the Physicists or Civil Engineers from
BYU that he has convinced.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:18:27 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:

>> And yet he still came to the wrong conclusions, as did you
>
>
>and where is the evidence showing he came to the wrong conclusion? And
>where is the evidence for your conclusion? Be specific.

You are not automatically right in science, requiring others to prove you
wrong; science doesn't work that way. If he can't convince civil engineers that
he is correct, he is the one that failed, not they.

But you can always prop up your delusions with the knowledge that Jones got
his paper published in a book of economic and policital articles about 9/11. I'm
willing to bet that you'll be waiting for a cold day in hell before he gets
published in a peer reviewed journal concerning structural engineering.

[Keith W]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
> "khobar" > wrote in news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
>
>> "Keith W" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
>>> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
>>> >
>>>
>>> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
>>> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
>>
>> Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
>> isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har har
>> har de har har.
>>
>> Paul Nixon
>>
>>
>
>
>
> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
> reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.

No, at best it can melt it, most often its used for welding


> Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
> Yes.

As can burning office furniture, this was present in huge quantities.

> Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.

No, thermite produces molten iron, the metal in the video was aluminium


> Were
> those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
> aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
> reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
> your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

I am not the person pushing the absurd government conspiracy theory.

Keith

[Keith W]

"Wake UP!" > wrote in message
...
> excerpt from Dr Jones paper:
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
>
> Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from
> the
> South WTC Tower shortly before its collapse:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863
> &q=cameraplanet+9%2F11. The yellow color implies a molten-metal
> temperature of approximately 1000 oC,

Problem is structural steel has a melting point of around 1400 deg C
so whatever it was it was NOT molten steel.

Keith

[-hh]

The troll comes back under the new name of "Wake Up!" and complained:
>
> and where is the evidence showing he came to the wrong conclusion? And
> where is the evidence for your conclusion? Be specific.


Here ya go:

http://tinyurl.com/nmh55


Your job is to now prove that this plan was possible by providing the
name of each conspirator.



-hh

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:25:07 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

> "khobar" > wrote in news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:
>
> > "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "khobar" > wrote in
> >> news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
> >>
> >> > "Keith W" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> >> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
> >> >> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
> >> >
> >> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
> >> > isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har
> >> > har har de har har.
> >> >
> >> > Paul Nixon
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
> >> a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
> >> Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
> >> the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
> >> Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way
> >> you deniers aren't able to take everything into context, and instead
> >> give silly reasons for each and every piece of information, so you
> >> can hold on to your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!
> >
> > Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
> > reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes.
> > Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.
> > Were these three items present at the WTC? Yes.
> >
> > Oops...
> >
> > Paul Nixon
> >
> Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget that
> hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters are
> growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22 seminar,
> he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new investigation.

Why all the evidence is in the proofs you keep posting !

And the investigation those faculty members think should happen ?
Why do I suspect they want to know how Dr Jones came to his degree in
structural engineering



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

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Wake Up!" > wet his bed, picked his nose, drooled and
pecked out:

> "khobar" > wrote in news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:
>
> > "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "khobar" > wrote in
> >> news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
> >>
> >> > "Keith W" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> >> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
> >> >> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
> >> >
> >> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
> >> > isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har
> >> > har har de har har.
> >> >
> >> > Paul Nixon
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
> >> a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
> >> Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
> >> the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
> >> Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way
> >> you deniers aren't able to take everything into context, and instead
> >> give silly reasons for each and every piece of information, so you
> >> can hold on to your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!
> >
> > Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
> > reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes.
> > Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.
> > Were these three items present at the WTC? Yes.
> >
> > Oops...
> >
> > Paul Nixon
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget that
> hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters are
> growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22 seminar,
> he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new investigation.


How do we know that it really wasn't Klingons, traveling back in time,
using their disrupter weapons to destroy WTC #1, #2 and #7? All those
straw men that the "9/11 'truth' movement" so disingenuously proposes
have about the same credibility as the Klingon notion.

[khobar]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Wake Up!" > wet his bed, picked his nose, drooled and
> pecked out:
>
> > "khobar" > wrote in news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:
> >
> > > "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> "khobar" > wrote in
> > >> news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
> > >>
> > >> > "Keith W" > wrote in message
> > >> > ...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> > >> >> ...
> > >> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> > >> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
> > >> >> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
> > >> > isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har
> > >> > har har de har har.
> > >> >
> > >> > Paul Nixon
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
> > >> a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
> > >> Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
> > >> the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
> > >> Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way
> > >> you deniers aren't able to take everything into context, and instead
> > >> give silly reasons for each and every piece of information, so you
> > >> can hold on to your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!
> > >
> > > Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
> > > reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes.
> > > Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.
> > > Were these three items present at the WTC? Yes.
> > >
> > > Oops...
> > >
> > > Paul Nixon
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget that
> > hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters are
> > growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22
seminar,
> > he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new
investigation.
>
>
> How do we know that it really wasn't Klingons, traveling back in time,
> using their disrupter weapons to destroy WTC #1, #2 and #7? All those
> straw men that the "9/11 'truth' movement" so disingenuously proposes
> have about the same credibility as the Klingon notion.

Klingons have not been shown to do time travel, AFAIK, so there.

The Borg, on the other hand...(I wonder if Prof. Jones has explored this
one?)

Paul Nixon

[WAKE UP]

mrtravel > wrote in news:knSQf.38042$_S7.31872
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> There is plenty of evidence, you just choose to ignore anything/anyone
> that doesn't agree with you. Remember the pilots that stated an
> airliner could be flown by amateurs into the WTC. You ignored their
> comments, didn't you?


Oh come onnnnnnnnn! Only an idiot would take anything mentioned from so
called "pilots" in this group seriously. Besides, a "comment" is NOT
evidence

[Wake Up!]

mrtravel > wrote in
. com:

> Wake Up! wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that?
>
> Where is the evidence that it was thermite?
> You posted a link to someone who claimed it was nuclear.
> Are you going to claim you didn't read that either?
> You have a habit of posting links as "proof" and then claiming these
> are not your beliefs.



There is NO concrete evidence (at this time) that it was thermite.

Jones' paper is a hypothesis. See here if not familiar:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis

The evidence he shows suggests controlled demolitions. The purpose of his
paper is to call for a new investigation.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399





> Let's not forget that
>> hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters
>> are growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22
>> seminar, he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new
>> investigation.
>
> Cite? Prior reviews of the same "evidence" have caused his peers to
> regard him as "misinformed". Did new "evidence" come to light?
>
>
>



From his paper:



11. Faculty at WTC Review Support Investigation



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. He joined the others in hoping
that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST
plus others held by the FBI would be released for independent scrutiny;
photos largely from private photographers (NIST, 2005, p. 81). Therefore,
I along with others call for the release of these data to a cross-
disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers.

[Wake Up!]

"Keith W" > wrote in news:dv134f$lf1$1
:

>
> "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "khobar" > wrote in news:kZBQf.392$PE.376
@fed1read05:
>>
>>> "Keith W" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
>>>> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
>>>> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
>>>
>>> Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
>>> isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har
har
>>> har de har har.
>>>
>>> Paul Nixon
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
a
>> reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
>
> No, at best it can melt it, most often its used for welding.



From Jones' paper:
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting
to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials,
even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF
(~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a
jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.)
However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or
explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel, thus
cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the
required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not
mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.


>
>
>> Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the
WTC?
>> Yes.
>
> As can burning office furniture, this was presen in huge quantities.
> t
>> Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.
>
> No, thermite produces molten iron, the metal in the video was aluminium


From Jones' paper:
The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000
oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the
Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it
would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of
about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this
molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is in fact ruled out with high
probability. But molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video
is consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the
Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since
thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures. (As
some of the molten metal hits the side of the building in the video clip
above, note that the white-hot interior is exposed.) The reader may wish
to compare the dripping molten metal observed on the corner of the South
Tower just before its collapse with the dripping molten metal from known
thermite reactions: http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm .



>
>
>> Were
>> those tree items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
>> aren't able totake everything into context, and instead give silly
>> reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
>> your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!
>
> I am not the person pushing the absurd government conspiracy theory.
>
> Keith
>
>
>

I encourage you to look into this deeper. Here's some interesting
information. (Scroll down for 115 ommissions in the government reports):
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

[Wake Up!]

"Keith W" > wrote in news:dv13f4$g3v$1
:

>
> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> ...
>> excerpt from Dr Jones paper:
>> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>>
>>
>> Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping
from
>> the
>> South WTC Tower shortly before its collapse:
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863
>> &q=cameraplanet+9%2F11. The yellow color implies a molten-metal
>> temperature of approximately 1000 oC,
>
> Problem is structural steel has a melting point of around 1400 deg C
> so whatever it was it was NOT molten steel.
>
> Keith
>
>
>


It could have cooled a bit by that time

[Wake Up!]

Tank Fixer > wrote in
k.net:

> In article >,
> on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:25:07 GMT,
> Wake Up! attempted to say .....
>
>> "khobar" > wrote in
>> news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:
>>
>> > "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> "khobar" > wrote in
>> >> news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
>> >>
>> >> > "Keith W" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
>> >> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you
>> >> >> are aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent
>> >> >> you ?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since
>> >> > thermite isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it
>> >> > being used. Har har har de har har.
>> >> >
>> >> > Paul Nixon
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess
>> >> to a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate
>> >> steel? Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in
>> >> metal at the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in
>> >> the videos? Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I
>> >> love the way you deniers aren't able to take everything into
>> >> context, and instead give silly reasons for each and every piece
>> >> of information, so you can hold on to your absurd government
>> >> conspiracy theory. LOL!!
>> >
>> > Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a
>> > nuclear reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
>> > the WTC? Yes. Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in
>> > the videos? Yes. Were these three items present at the WTC? Yes.
>> >
>> > Oops...
>> >
>> > Paul Nixon
>> >
>> Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget that
>> hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters
>> are growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22
>> seminar, he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new
>> investigation.
>
> Why all the evidence is in the proofs you keep posting !
>
> And the investigation those faculty members think should happen ?
> Why do I suspect they want to know how Dr Jones came to his degree in
> structural engineering


This is what they're calling for:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399

Jones' has a PhD in physics, so he should be qualified to determine in
the government's version of the collapses defy phsyics.


i.e. from his paper:





"Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may
wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower
on 9-11:
www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg





Top ~ 30 floors of South Tower topple over.

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?



We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block,
to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Law
of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block is
enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still
puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we
understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable,
amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports
failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11
report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower
after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005,
p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)


Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data
to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST
team admits they did. But why did they do such a non-scientific
procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of
political constraints on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough”
investigation. (See Mooney, 2005.)


So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope the
international community will rise to the challenge. The field is wide
open for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here, due to its
neglect by studies funded by the US government."

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:34:45 GMT,
Orval Fairbairn attempted to say .....

> In article >,
> "Wake Up!" > wet his bed, picked his nose, drooled and
> pecked out:
>
> > "khobar" > wrote in news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:
> >
> > > "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> "khobar" > wrote in
> > >> news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
> > >>
> > >> > "Keith W" > wrote in message
> > >> > ...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> > >> >> ...
> > >> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> > >> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
> > >> >> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
> > >> > isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har
> > >> > har har de har har.
> > >> >
> > >> > Paul Nixon
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
> > >> a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
> > >> Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
> > >> the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
> > >> Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way
> > >> you deniers aren't able to take everything into context, and instead
> > >> give silly reasons for each and every piece of information, so you
> > >> can hold on to your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!
> > >
> > > Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
> > > reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes.
> > > Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.
> > > Were these three items present at the WTC? Yes.
> > >
> > > Oops...
> > >
> > > Paul Nixon
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget that
> > hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters are
> > growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22 seminar,
> > he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new investigation.
>
>
> How do we know that it really wasn't Klingons, traveling back in time,
> using their disrupter weapons to destroy WTC #1, #2 and #7? All those
> straw men that the "9/11 'truth' movement" so disingenuously proposes
> have about the same credibility as the Klingon notion.


Now that you mention it Dr Jones does look vaguely Klingon.
Without the forehead ridges of course..

--
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 Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:04:10 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> k.net:
>
> > In article >,
> > on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:25:07 GMT,
> > Wake Up! attempted to say .....
> >
> >> "khobar" > wrote in
> >> news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:
> >>
> >> > "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> "khobar" > wrote in
> >> >> news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Keith W" > wrote in message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> >> >> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you
> >> >> >> are aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent
> >> >> >> you ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since
> >> >> > thermite isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it
> >> >> > being used. Har har har de har har.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Paul Nixon
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess
> >> >> to a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate
> >> >> steel? Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in
> >> >> metal at the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in
> >> >> the videos? Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I
> >> >> love the way you deniers aren't able to take everything into
> >> >> context, and instead give silly reasons for each and every piece
> >> >> of information, so you can hold on to your absurd government
> >> >> conspiracy theory. LOL!!
> >> >
> >> > Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a
> >> > nuclear reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
> >> > the WTC? Yes. Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in
> >> > the videos? Yes. Were these three items present at the WTC? Yes.
> >> >
> >> > Oops...
> >> >
> >> > Paul Nixon
> >> >
> >> Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget that
> >> hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters
> >> are growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22
> >> seminar, he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new
> >> investigation.
> >
> > Why all the evidence is in the proofs you keep posting !
> >
> > And the investigation those faculty members think should happen ?
> > Why do I suspect they want to know how Dr Jones came to his degree in
> > structural engineering
>
>
> This is what they're calling for:
> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399
>
> Jones' has a PhD in physics, so he should be qualified to determine in
> the government's version of the collapses defy phsyics.

So he has no background in structural engineering ?
Nor the mechanics of matertials either I take it.

A degree in physics is just that.


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

[khobar]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
> mrtravel > wrote in
> . com:
>
> > Wake Up! wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that?
> >
> > Where is the evidence that it was thermite?
> > You posted a link to someone who claimed it was nuclear.
> > Are you going to claim you didn't read that either?
> > You have a habit of posting links as "proof" and then claiming these
> > are not your beliefs.
>
>
>
> There is NO concrete evidence (at this time) that it was thermite.

At least you admit that there is no evidence to support Jones. Sheesh, what
a waste of bandwidth.

Paul Nixon

[Johnny Bravo]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:39:26 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:

>There is NO concrete evidence (at this time) that it was thermite.
>
>Jones' paper is a hypothesis. See here if not familiar:
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis
>
>The evidence he shows suggests controlled demolitions. The purpose of his
>paper is to call for a new investigation.
>http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399

So lets sum this up, shall we?

Jones is calling for a new investigation, not on the basis of any concrete
evidence, but entirely on his dislike of the original investigation.

What makes Jones think he's entitled to use my money to fund his own private
investigation?

[Johnny Bravo]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:04:10 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:

>This is what they're calling for:
>http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399
>
>Jones' has a PhD in physics, so he should be qualified to determine in
>the government's version of the collapses defy phsyics.

So someone with a PhD in medicine should be qualified to perform brain
surgery? Or is it just possible that a PhD in one field doesn't automatically
make you an expert in anything but that one field?

[Johnny Bravo]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:54:44 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:

>From Jones' paper:
>The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting
>to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials,
>even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF
>(~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel.

Note from reality:

Steel doesn't need to be "evaporated" to give that appearance. Heating to
1,500F and exposure to enough oxygen, even if the initial heat source is then
completely removed, will cause steel to burn. Note, that this isn't a thermal
reaction but a chemical one, the steel isn't melting; it's combusting and
generates enough heat to be a self-sustaining process as long as a sufficient
supply of oxygen is present.

>(Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a
>jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.)

Recall that WTC 7 had thousands of gallons of diesel which would have been
pumped to the upper floors to supply the generators. A break in these lines
would have resulted in this fuel being pumped out through the break and right
into the fire that WTC 7 was experiencing.

Nice try to throw in the lack of a jet but that red herring has long since
passed its expiration date.

>However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or
>explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel,

RDX, nor any other explosive, can "slice through steel". Steel shatters in an
explosion, it doesn't evaporate in any explosion short of a nuclear weapon going
off.

>cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the
>required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not
>mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.

The reports didn't mention the Earth being round either, that's no reason to
call for that mystery to be "explored".

[Johnny Bravo]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:27:01 GMT, WAKE UP > wrote:

>mrtravel > wrote in news:knSQf.38042$_S7.31872
:
>
>> There is plenty of evidence, you just choose to ignore anything/anyone
>> that doesn't agree with you. Remember the pilots that stated an
>> airliner could be flown by amateurs into the WTC. You ignored their
>> comments, didn't you?
>
>
>Oh come onnnnnnnnn! Only an idiot would take anything mentioned from so
>called "pilots" in this group seriously.

Only an idiot would casually dismiss comments from certified pilots.

You appear to be that idiot.

>Besides, a "comment" is NOT evidence

That never stopped you before.

[Wake Up!]

Tank Fixer > wrote in
k.net:

> In article >,
> on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:04:10 GMT,
> Wake Up! attempted to say .....
>
>> Tank Fixer > wrote in
>> k.net:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:25:07 GMT,
>> > Wake Up! attempted to say .....
>> >
>> >> "khobar" > wrote in
>> >> news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:
>> >>
>> >> > "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >> "khobar" > wrote in
>> >> >> news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "Keith W" > wrote in
>> >> >> > message ...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
>> >> >> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way
>> >> >> >> you are aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings
>> >> >> >> arent you ?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since
>> >> >> > thermite isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it
>> >> >> > being used. Har har har de har har.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Paul Nixon
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I
>> >> >> guess to a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially
>> >> >> evaporate steel? Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures
>> >> >> that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal
>> >> >> dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were those three items
>> >> >> present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers aren't able
>> >> >> to take everything into context, and instead give silly reasons
>> >> >> for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
>> >> >> your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!
>> >> >
>> >> > Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a
>> >> > nuclear reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
>> >> > the WTC? Yes. Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like
>> >> > in the videos? Yes. Were these three items present at the WTC?
>> >> > Yes.
>> >> >
>> >> > Oops...
>> >> >
>> >> > Paul Nixon
>> >> >
>> >> Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget that
>> >> hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His
>> >> supporters are growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence
>> >> at his Sept 22 seminar, he convinced 60 faculty members that there
>> >> should be a new investigation.
>> >
>> > Why all the evidence is in the proofs you keep posting !
>> >
>> > And the investigation those faculty members think should happen ?
>> > Why do I suspect they want to know how Dr Jones came to his degree
>> > in structural engineering
>>
>>
>> This is what they're calling for:
>> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399
>>
>> Jones' has a PhD in physics, so he should be qualified to determine
>> in the government's version of the collapses defy phsyics.
>
> So he has no background in structural engineering ?
> Nor the mechanics of matertials either I take it.
>
> A degree in physics is just that.
>
>



Watch the video of the South Tower collapse below.



excerpt from Jones' paper:

Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may
wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC
Tower on 9-11:
www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg





Top ~ 30 floors of South Tower topple over.

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?



We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a
block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by
the Law of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block
is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still
puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can
we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable,
amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports
failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11
report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower
after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005,
p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)



Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data
to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST
team admits they did. But why did they do such a non-scientific
procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of
political constraints on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough”
investigation. (See Mooney, 2005.)



So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope
the international community will rise to the challenge. The field is
wide open for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here, due
to its neglect by studies funded by the US government.

[mrtravel]

Wake Up! wrote:

> mrtravel > wrote in
> . com:
>
>
>>Wake Up! wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that?
>>
>>Where is the evidence that it was thermite?
>>You posted a link to someone who claimed it was nuclear.
>>Are you going to claim you didn't read that either?
>>You have a habit of posting links as "proof" and then claiming these
>>are not your beliefs.
>
>
>
>
> There is NO concrete evidence (at this time) that it was thermite.
>

Then isn't the subject line YOU selected NOT very accurate?

[Dave Doe]

In article >, says...
> mrtravel > wrote in news:5MLQf.75273$PL5.59656
> @newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
>
> > Wake Up! wrote:
> >
> >> mrtravel > wrote in
> >> . com:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Wake Up! wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>If what you say is true, then consider emailing Dr Jones with your
> >>>>evidence and he will certainly update his paper
> >>>
> >>>LOL
> >>>It isn't too difficult for Dr Jones to actually research this himself
> >>>
> >
> >> Obviously, he did.
> >
> > And yet he still came to the wrong conclusions, as did you
>
>
>
>
> and where is the evidence showing he came to the wrong conclusion? And
> where is the evidence for your conclusion? Be specific.

Thermite reactions (unless very carefully controlled) - are not
"explosions" - FULLSTOP! The video footage clearly shows a large
explosion.


--
Duncan

[Keith W]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith W" > wrote in news:dv134f$lf1$1
> :
>

>>
>> No, at best it can melt it, most often its used for welding.
>
>
>
> From Jones' paper:
> The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting
> to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials,
> even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF
> (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a
> jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.)


Jones isnt a structural engineer and doesnt know how to interperate
fire evidence.

There was no 'evaporation' of steel members, there was however considerable
oxidation. Steel immersed in a fire burning at temperatures of only 1000 deg
C
for a prolonged period will oxidise. The fires in the rubble of the WTC
burned
for weeks. The results were precisely as expected.


> However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or
> explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel, thus
> cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the
> required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not
> mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.
>

This is frigging nonsense

Thermite produces temperatures hot enough to MELT steel, thats why
its used for field welding where electricty isnt available. It does NOT
and CANNOT evaporate steel

The boiling point of liquid iron is approx 2800 C, thermite burns at
2500 C

Thermite CANNOT evaporate steel


>
>>
>>
>>> Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the
> WTC?
>>> Yes.
>>
>> As can burning office furniture, this was presen in huge quantities.
>> t
>>> Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.
>>
>> No, thermite produces molten iron, the metal in the video was aluminium
>
>
> From Jones' paper:
> The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000
> oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the
> Towers could produce.

And structural steel melts at temperatures in excess of 1400c

Ergo whatever it was the material was NOT molten steel.


> If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it
> would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of
> about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this
> molten metal.

Unless it was contained by some other material that had not melted


> Thus, molten aluminum is in fact ruled out with high
> probability. But molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video
> is consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the
> Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since
> thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures.

Look up the melting point of iron old boy it's in excess of 1500 C

http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/heat.html

Melting large quantities of steel is remarkably difficult and involves
huge quantities of energy. You'd need many tons of thermite
installed without anybody noticing and then the hijackers would have to hit
the exact floors prepared.

Occams razor applies here.


<snip>

>
> I encourage you to look into this deeper. Here's some interesting
> information. (Scroll down for 115 ommissions in the government reports):


As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.

The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in buckling
with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
each floor in turn

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'

As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Keith W]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith W" > wrote in news:dv13f4$g3v$1
> :
>
>>
>> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> excerpt from Dr Jones paper:
>>> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping
> from
>>> the
>>> South WTC Tower shortly before its collapse:
>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863
>>> &q=cameraplanet+9%2F11. The yellow color implies a molten-metal
>>> temperature of approximately 1000 oC,
>>
>> Problem is structural steel has a melting point of around 1400 deg C
>> so whatever it was it was NOT molten steel.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> It could have cooled a bit by that time
>

We call that stuff SOLID steel

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Wake Up!]

"Keith W" > wrote in
:

> As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
> and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
> qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
> have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.
>
> The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
> the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in buckling
> with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
> the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
> each floor in turn
>
> http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf
>
> The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
> those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'
>
> As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
> relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
> World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
> Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>



Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional opinion
on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the video links too):



Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may wish
to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower on 9-
11:
www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg





Top ~ 30 floors of South Tower topple over.

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?



We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block,
to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Law of
Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous,
as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over –
this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this
strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding
scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this
phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually
include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for
collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis
added.)



Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data to
be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST team
admits they did. But why did they do such a non-scientific procedure as to
ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of political constraints
on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough” investigation. (See
Mooney, 2005.)



So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope the
international community will rise to the challenge. The field is wide open
for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here, due to its
neglect by studies funded by the US government.



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



Keith, each Tower had 47 massive steel beams. Please take a few minutes and
search Jones' paper for the term "core" and read the information (as it
pertains to the 47 massive steel columns):
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


Also look through this paper by a Mechanical Engineering Professor:
www.911blogger.com/2006/03/mechanical-engineering-professor-from.html


Finally, how does one explain the near free fall collapse of WTC 7, which
was NOT hit by an airplane?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc-7_cbs_demolition.mpg



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"

[Keith W]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith W" > wrote in
> :
>
>> As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
>> and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
>> qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
>> have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.
>>
>> The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
>> the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in buckling
>> with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
>> the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
>> each floor in turn
>>
>> http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf
>>
>> The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
>> those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'
>>
>> As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
>> relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
>> News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
>> World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
>> Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>>
>
>
>
> Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional opinion
> on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the video links
> too):
>
>

I did so some days ago - clearly you werent listening

If you want a professional analysis it will cost $1500 per
day plus expenses, minimum charge period is one day.

Keith

[Wake Up!]

"Keith W" > wrote in
:

>
> "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Keith W" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
>>> and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
>>> qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
>>> have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.
>>>
>>> The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
>>> the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in
>>> buckling with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
>>> the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
>>> each floor in turn
>>>
>>> http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf
>>>
>>> The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
>>> those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'
>>>
>>> As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
>>> relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure
>>> Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service
>>> in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server
>>> Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional
>> opinion on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the
>> video links too):
>>
>>
>
> I did so some days ago - clearly you werent listening
>
> If you want a professional analysis it will cost $1500 per
> day plus expenses, minimum charge period is one day.
>
> Keith
>
>
>




I thought your name was Mike???

[Wake Up!]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@
130.81.64.196:

> "Keith W" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Keith W" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
>>>> and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
>>>> qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
>>>> have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.
>>>>
>>>> The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
>>>> the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in
>>>> buckling with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
>>>> the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
>>>> each floor in turn
>>>>
>>>> http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf
>>>>
>>>> The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
>>>> those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'
>>>>
>>>> As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
>>>> relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.
>>>>
>>>> Keith
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure
>>>> Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service
>>>> in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server
>>>> Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional
>>> opinion on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the
>>> video links too):
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I did so some days ago - clearly you werent listening
>>
>> If you want a professional analysis it will cost $1500 per
>> day plus expenses, minimum charge period is one day.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> I thought your name was Mike???



Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.

[mrtravel]

Wake Up! wrote:
> "Keith W" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Keith W" > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>>As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
>>>>and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
>>>>qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
>>>>have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.
>>>>
>>>>The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
>>>>the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in
>>>>buckling with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
>>>>the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
>>>>each floor in turn
>>>>
>>>>http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf
>>>>
>>>>The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
>>>>those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'
>>>>
>>>>As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
>>>>relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.
>>>>
>>>>Keith
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure
>>>>Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service
>>>>in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server
>>>>Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional
>>>opinion on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the
>>>video links too):
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I did so some days ago - clearly you werent listening
>>
>>If you want a professional analysis it will cost $1500 per
>>day plus expenses, minimum charge period is one day.
>>
>>Keith
>>

>
> I thought your name was Mike???

Then why do you say, "Keith, you're a qualified engineer" and ask for
his opinion? Man, the 60's were good to you. You are in a discussion
with Keith and surprised when he signs his name "Keith" again.

[mrtravel]

Wake Up! wrote:
>
> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
> building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
> definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
> framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.

You claim it was thermite.
There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
But, don't let the facts bother you.
You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the info
you post yourself.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Wake Up!" > wrote:

> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
> building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
> definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
> framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never.

Name one who agrees with your little claim, there.

You see, the problem with that is that steel frame buildings generally
aren't *allowed* to catch on fire and keep burning without some fire
suppression going on. The WTC (1, 2 and 7) are nearly unique cases, in
which two of them had their fireproofing stripped off through plane
impacts and the other had a big tank of diesel fuel sitting in the
middle of it, and had some damage from the tremors of the first two
collapsing.

That "near free fall speed" is what pretty much any tall building falls
at once it starts to go.

[Wake Up!]

mrtravel > wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

> Wake Up! wrote:
>>
>> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
>> building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
>> definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
>> framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.
>
> You claim it was thermite.
> There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
> But, don't let the facts bother you.
> You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the info
> you post yourself.




No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's the
ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.

No 2: your comment about "ample evidence on collapses of steel
structures" has absolutely zero relevance on what I'm talking about.



Steel Framed Skyscrapers Do NOT Completely Collapse From Fire Period!

What is so hard for people to understand about that statement?

It never happened before! NEVER!!! IT IS A FACT!!!


According to you pilots it could happen on 9/11 THREE times? My God!


WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane! Is that understood?

WTC 7 collapsed near symetrically, near free fall speed!

WTC 7 had smoke puffs going up the wall just as it started to collapse!

The WTC 7 leaseholder said (on camera) that it was pulled! The
leaseholder bought a 99 yr lease on the entire WTC complex just six
weeks before 9/11! He wasn't in his North Tower office on 9/11 due to a
"doctors appointment"! His lawyers successfully sued to get TWICE the
payout claiming it was two separate attacks! The insurance company's
structural engineer said (on camera) that the way the vertical columns in
the Towers severed simultaneously was just like controlled demolitions!
The WTC 7 fire alarm was put into test mode the morning of 9/11!


Each Twin Tower was designed withstand the impact on a FULLY LOADED 707!
The 767s on 9/11 were UNDERBOOKED! An executive in the WTC Construction
Management Company said (on camera) in his opinion the Towers could
withstand MULTIPLE 707 crashes! He said a plane crashing into the Towers
is the same as a pencil puncturing a window screen -- it does NOTHING!



It is time to Wake UP! and face the TRUTH

[Keith W]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith W" > wrote in
> :
>

>>>
>>> Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional
>>> opinion on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the
>>> video links too):
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I did so some days ago - clearly you werent listening
>>
>> If you want a professional analysis it will cost $1500 per
>> day plus expenses, minimum charge period is one day.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> I thought your name was Mike???
>

Well your thought processes are mysterious so I'm not
exactly surprised.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Keith W]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
> "Wake Up!" > wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@
> 130.81.64.196:
>

>
>
>
> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
> building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
> definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
> framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.

A qualified engineer knows that steel framed buildings can and
do collapse from fire. Indeed the building codes require fire
protection material to be applied to structural members to prevent
such a collapse.

I have in my collection photos of 2 large buildings gutted by fire
during the London Blitz of 1940, one was steel framed the
other was built using beams of Baltic oak. The steel framed
building collapsed, the oak framed building had its timbers
charred to a depth of 1" but stayed upright

Moreover trusses such as those used in the WTC buildings are
notoriously prone to such failures, there's an a excellent article
on the risk associated with trusses at

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/


Fire protection cannot ensure that buildings stand indefinitely.
They are designed to ensure adequate time to evacuate the
building which is what happened in WTC 7


Of course if the fire is preceded by an impact that pre-weakens
the structure and blocks the stairwells from above the impact
point complete evacuation will not be possible and the building
will collapse early.

ALL the qualified engineers who have reviewed the evidence
know what caused the WTC collapse and it wasnt thermite
or explosives, it was fire and impact damage. The evidence
of truss failure is incontrivertable and the subsequant failure
mechanism of buckling is clearly evidenced on the video.

The lessons of the WTC collapse is that such truss construction
techniques should be avoided for high rise buildings, fortunately
they are not widely used which is why previous high rise
fires didnt lead to progressive collapse.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Dan]

Wake Up! wrote:
> "Keith W" > wrote in
> :
>
>> As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
>> and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
>> qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
>> have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.
>>
>> The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
>> the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in buckling
>> with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
>> the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
>> each floor in turn
>>
>> http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf
>>
>> The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
>> those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'
>>
>> As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
>> relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
>> News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
>> World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
>> Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>>
>
>
>
> Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional opinion
> on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the video links too):
>

Why do you bother? As "truth" and your other names you asked exactly
the same questions and then called all the responders names,became
vulgar, told them they were wrong, that they had provided "no scientific
proof" and then threw a tantrum before leaving.

As near as I can see the only things you seem to have learned are:
jetliners don't fly on diesel fuel and squibs aren't puffs of smoke. I'm
glad I was able to teach you that much.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

Wake Up! wrote:
> mrtravel > wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
> @newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> Wake Up! wrote:
>>> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
>>> building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
>>> definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
>>> framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.
>> You claim it was thermite.
>> There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
>> But, don't let the facts bother you.
>> You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the info
>> you post yourself.
>
>
>
>
> No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's the
> ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.

Other than Jones provide cites proving thermite is a
"cutter-explosive." You have been told many times by those of us who
have used it that it is not used for cutting nor is it an explosive.
>
> No 2: your comment about "ample evidence on collapses of steel
> structures" has absolutely zero relevance on what I'm talking about.
>
>
>
> Steel Framed Skyscrapers Do NOT Completely Collapse From Fire Period!
>
> What is so hard for people to understand about that statement?
>
> It never happened before! NEVER!!! IT IS A FACT!!!

Then again no one had ever flown large civilian jetliners into 100
story buildings either. Why do you ignore experts in the relevant fields
and insist on listening to Jones who is not?
>
>
> According to you pilots it could happen on 9/11 THREE times? My God!
>
>
> WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane! Is that understood?

No one said it was, but it was struck by debris from WTC1 and WTC2 and
burned for a long time due to fuels inside the building.
>
> WTC 7 collapsed near symetrically, near free fall speed!

Then explain how it leaned over as it fell. Look at the pile of rubble.
>
> WTC 7 had smoke puffs going up the wall just as it started to collapse!

Yes, that's what happens when smoke from an ongoing fire is released
due to collapse. It happens in residential fires too.

>
> The WTC 7 leaseholder said (on camera) that it was pulled! The
> leaseholder bought a 99 yr lease on the entire WTC complex just six
> weeks before 9/11! He wasn't in his North Tower office on 9/11 due to a
> "doctors appointment"! His lawyers successfully sued to get TWICE the
> payout claiming it was two separate attacks! The insurance company's
> structural engineer said (on camera) that the way the vertical columns in
> the Towers severed simultaneously was just like controlled demolitions!
> The WTC 7 fire alarm was put into test mode the morning of 9/11!

So what? Nothing there proves a conspiracy. Suppose your a Cessna 172
drops out of the sky and lands on your house while you are at a doctor's
appointment. Does that make you responsible for the destruction?
>
>
> Each Twin Tower was designed withstand the impact on a FULLY LOADED 707!
> The 767s on 9/11 were UNDERBOOKED! An executive in the WTC Construction
> Management Company said (on camera) in his opinion the Towers could
> withstand MULTIPLE 707 crashes! He said a plane crashing into the Towers
> is the same as a pencil puncturing a window screen -- it does NOTHING!
>

767 is much bigger than 707 and is more massive even when
"underbooked." The towers were designed to withstand a single 707. Even
if they could were designed to take multiple 707 hits and survive those
strikes would have been spread out over a larger area then a single 767
strike. Please try thinking logically.

>
>
> It is time to Wake UP! and face the TRUTH

Take your own advice.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

Keith W wrote:
[snip]
> The lessons of the WTC collapse is that such truss construction
> techniques should be avoided for high rise buildings, fortunately
> they are not widely used which is why previous high rise
> fires didnt lead to progressive collapse.
[snip]

Have you looked at the foundation of WTC 7? You wanna talk
about some lessons learned. That collection of support trusses
for a foundation was a single point failure just waiting to happen.

[Laurence Doering]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:15:27 -0500, Scott M. Kozel > wrote:
> "Wake UP!" > wrote:
>>
>> Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
>> http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
>
> That most likely is melting aluminum. It has been said to be likely
> that aircraft wreckage piled up in that corner of the South Tower.

You don't even need aircraft wreckage for aluminum to have been
the source of the sparks and apparently molten material. The
external metal sheathing on the World Trade Center towers was
an aluminum alloy [1].

Aluminum's melting point is around 1,200 degrees F, a temperature
that's easily reached in building fires.


ljd

[1] http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=104

[Laurence Doering]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:50:53 GMT, Wake Up! > wrote:
> "Wake Up!" > wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@
>
> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
> building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
> definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
> framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.

Which, I guess, means all those engineers who spend so much time
devising fireproofing materials for steel structural members
in buildings have been wasting their time all these years.

Imagine the money that could have been saved in the WTC towers
alone -- all that fireproofing material sprayed on the buildings'
steel structure could have been eliminated, and the costly and
inconvenient effort to update the fire protection that was
still not completed when the WTC towers collapsed was a
colossal waste of time.

If only they'd known what you apparently know -- that fire can't
possibly reduce the yield strength of steel and cause structural
failure.

I guess all those web sites with pictures of what happened to
the steel structure of Madrid's Windsor Building during a fire
on February 2005 are fakes too, right?


ljd

[Johnny Bravo]

On 14 Mar 2006 08:18:35 -0800, "
> wrote:

>
>Keith W wrote:
>[snip]
>> The lessons of the WTC collapse is that such truss construction
>> techniques should be avoided for high rise buildings, fortunately
>> they are not widely used which is why previous high rise
>> fires didnt lead to progressive collapse.
>[snip]
>
> Have you looked at the foundation of WTC 7? You wanna talk
>about some lessons learned. That collection of support trusses
>for a foundation was a single point failure just waiting to happen.

That's what you get when you build a different building than planned on an
already existing foundation. An accident waiting to happen.

[mrtravel]

Wake Up! wrote:

> The WTC 7 leaseholder said (on camera) that it was pulled!

Right, he admitted he was involved.. SURE.

[mrtravel]

Dan wrote:

> Wake Up! wrote:

>> Each Twin Tower was designed withstand the impact on a FULLY LOADED
>> 707! The 767s on 9/11 were UNDERBOOKED! An executive in the WTC
>> Construction Management Company said (on camera) in his opinion the
>> Towers could withstand MULTIPLE 707 crashes! He said a plane crashing
>> into the Towers is the same as a pencil puncturing a window screen --
>> it does NOTHING!
>>
>
> 767 is much bigger than 707 and is more massive even when
> "underbooked." The towers were designed to withstand a single 707. Even
> if they could were designed to take multiple 707 hits and survive those
> strikes would have been spread out over a larger area then a single 767
> strike. Please try thinking logically.
>

Not only that, but the Titantic was designed to be "unsinkable".

[Dan]

mrtravel wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>> Wake Up! wrote:
>
>>> Each Twin Tower was designed withstand the impact on a FULLY LOADED
>>> 707! The 767s on 9/11 were UNDERBOOKED! An executive in the WTC
>>> Construction Management Company said (on camera) in his opinion the
>>> Towers could withstand MULTIPLE 707 crashes! He said a plane crashing
>>> into the Towers is the same as a pencil puncturing a window screen --
>>> it does NOTHING!
>>>
>>
>> 767 is much bigger than 707 and is more massive even when
>> "underbooked." The towers were designed to withstand a single 707.
>> Even if they could were designed to take multiple 707 hits and survive
>> those strikes would have been spread out over a larger area then a
>> single 767 strike. Please try thinking logically.
>>
>
> Not only that, but the Titantic was designed to be "unsinkable".

Actually neither White Star Lines nor the builders ever claimed
Titanic was unsinkable. That term was started by the press.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Macklin]

And the SDI program was called StarWars by the anti-Reagan
press too. He who gets to name the game often wins.
Hitler named mass murder The Final Solution, luckily he
lost.

You can think of many altered names, intended to fool the
public about what is intended, like Tax Reform or Safe
Streets, or Child Protection...



"Dan" > wrote in message
news:OUFRf.61257$Ug4.36007@dukeread12...
| mrtravel wrote:
| > Dan wrote:
| >
| >> Wake Up! wrote:
| >
| >>> Each Twin Tower was designed withstand the impact on a
FULLY LOADED
| >>> 707! The 767s on 9/11 were UNDERBOOKED! An executive
in the WTC
| >>> Construction Management Company said (on camera) in
his opinion the
| >>> Towers could withstand MULTIPLE 707 crashes! He said a
plane crashing
| >>> into the Towers is the same as a pencil puncturing a
window screen --
| >>> it does NOTHING!
| >>>
| >>
| >> 767 is much bigger than 707 and is more massive even
when
| >> "underbooked." The towers were designed to withstand a
single 707.
| >> Even if they could were designed to take multiple 707
hits and survive
| >> those strikes would have been spread out over a larger
area then a
| >> single 767 strike. Please try thinking logically.
| >>
| >
| > Not only that, but the Titantic was designed to be
"unsinkable".
|
| Actually neither White Star Lines nor the builders ever
claimed
| Titanic was unsinkable. That term was started by the
press.
|
| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Laurence Doering > wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:15:27 -0500, Scott M. Kozel >
> wrote:
> > "Wake UP!" > wrote:
> >>
> >> Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> >> http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> >
> > That most likely is melting aluminum. It has been said to be likely
> > that aircraft wreckage piled up in that corner of the South Tower.
>
> You don't even need aircraft wreckage for aluminum to have been
> the source of the sparks and apparently molten material. The
> external metal sheathing on the World Trade Center towers was
> an aluminum alloy [1].
>
> Aluminum's melting point is around 1,200 degrees F, a temperature
> that's easily reached in building fires.
>
> [1] http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=104

And, as a side note, steel weakens dramatically in fires nowhere close
to its melting point. My VW Bug caught fire a few weeks back, and the
steel carburetor spring went "unspringy." This was for a five minute
fire, with small amounts of gasoline and rubber as the fuels.

There is also the consideration of metals beside steel and aluminum in
the fires - magnesium, for example. There was a good bit in the planes
that hit the Towers, and it melts and catches fire quite easily at a
mere 600 degrees C.

[khobar]

"Dan" > wrote in message
news:OUFRf.61257$Ug4.36007@dukeread12...
> mrtravel wrote:
> > Dan wrote:
> >
> >> Wake Up! wrote:
> >
> >>> Each Twin Tower was designed withstand the impact on a FULLY LOADED
> >>> 707! The 767s on 9/11 were UNDERBOOKED! An executive in the WTC
> >>> Construction Management Company said (on camera) in his opinion the
> >>> Towers could withstand MULTIPLE 707 crashes! He said a plane crashing
> >>> into the Towers is the same as a pencil puncturing a window screen --
> >>> it does NOTHING!
> >>>
> >>
> >> 767 is much bigger than 707 and is more massive even when
> >> "underbooked." The towers were designed to withstand a single 707.
> >> Even if they could were designed to take multiple 707 hits and survive
> >> those strikes would have been spread out over a larger area then a
> >> single 767 strike. Please try thinking logically.
> >>
> >
> > Not only that, but the Titantic was designed to be "unsinkable".
>
> Actually neither White Star Lines nor the builders ever claimed
> Titanic was unsinkable. That term was started by the press.

"These two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable." White Star Line
brochure, 1910, for Titanic and Olympic.

"We are absolutely satisfied that even if she was in collision with an
iceberg, she is in no danger. With her numerous water-tight compartments she
is absolutely unsinkable, and it makes no difference what she hits. The
report should not cause any serious anxiety."

"We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is
unsinkable."

"There is no danger that Titanic will sink. The boat is unsinkable, and
nothing but inconvenience will be suffered by the passengers."

"In any event, the ship is unsinkable, and there is absolutely no danger to
passengers."

""We cannot state too strongly our belief that the ship is unsinkable and
the passengers perfectly safe. The ship is reported to have gone down
several feet by the head. This may be due from water filling forward
compartments, and [the] ship may go down many feet and still keep afloat for
an indefinite period."

Statements by White Star Line Vice President P.A.S Franklin, after WSL's New
York office was informed that Titanic was in trouble.

Paul Nixon

[Dan]

khobar wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> news:OUFRf.61257$Ug4.36007@dukeread12...
>> mrtravel wrote:
>>> Dan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wake Up! wrote:
>>>>> Each Twin Tower was designed withstand the impact on a FULLY LOADED
>>>>> 707! The 767s on 9/11 were UNDERBOOKED! An executive in the WTC
>>>>> Construction Management Company said (on camera) in his opinion the
>>>>> Towers could withstand MULTIPLE 707 crashes! He said a plane crashing
>>>>> into the Towers is the same as a pencil puncturing a window screen --
>>>>> it does NOTHING!
>>>>>
>>>> 767 is much bigger than 707 and is more massive even when
>>>> "underbooked." The towers were designed to withstand a single 707.
>>>> Even if they could were designed to take multiple 707 hits and survive
>>>> those strikes would have been spread out over a larger area then a
>>>> single 767 strike. Please try thinking logically.
>>>>
>>> Not only that, but the Titantic was designed to be "unsinkable".
>> Actually neither White Star Lines nor the builders ever claimed
>> Titanic was unsinkable. That term was started by the press.
>
> "These two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable." White Star Line
> brochure, 1910, for Titanic and Olympic.
>
> "We are absolutely satisfied that even if she was in collision with an
> iceberg, she is in no danger. With her numerous water-tight compartments she
> is absolutely unsinkable, and it makes no difference what she hits. The
> report should not cause any serious anxiety."
>
> "We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is
> unsinkable."
>
> "There is no danger that Titanic will sink. The boat is unsinkable, and
> nothing but inconvenience will be suffered by the passengers."
>
> "In any event, the ship is unsinkable, and there is absolutely no danger to
> passengers."
>
> ""We cannot state too strongly our belief that the ship is unsinkable and
> the passengers perfectly safe. The ship is reported to have gone down
> several feet by the head. This may be due from water filling forward
> compartments, and [the] ship may go down many feet and still keep afloat for
> an indefinite period."
>
> Statements by White Star Line Vice President P.A.S Franklin, after WSL's New
> York office was informed that Titanic was in trouble.
>
> Paul Nixon
>
>
>
>
>
Egad, I stand corrected.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Wake Up!]

Dan > wrote in news:rZzRf.61236$Ug4.16589@dukeread12:

> Wake Up! wrote:
>> mrtravel > wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
>> @newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
>>
>>> Wake Up! wrote:
>>>> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
>>>> framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
>>>> you are definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know
>>>> that steel framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire.
>>>> Never. Sorry.
>>> You claim it was thermite.
>>> There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
>>> But, don't let the facts bother you.
>>> You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the
>>> info you post yourself.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's
>> the ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.
>
> Other than Jones provide cites proving thermite is a
> "cutter-explosive." You have been told many times by those of us who
> have used it that it is not used for cutting nor is it an explosive.
>>
>> No 2: your comment about "ample evidence on collapses of steel
>> structures" has absolutely zero relevance on what I'm talking about.
>>
>>
>>
>> Steel Framed Skyscrapers Do NOT Completely Collapse From Fire Period!
>>
>> What is so hard for people to understand about that statement?
>>
>> It never happened before! NEVER!!! IT IS A FACT!!!
>
> Then again no one had ever flown large civilian jetliners into 100
> story buildings either. Why do you ignore experts in the relevant
> fields and insist on listening to Jones who is not?
>>
>>
>> According to you pilots it could happen on 9/11 THREE times? My God!
>>
>>
>> WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane! Is that understood?
>
> No one said it was, but it was struck by debris from WTC1 and WTC2 and
> burned for a long time due to fuels inside the building.
>>
>> WTC 7 collapsed near symetrically, near free fall speed!
>
> Then explain how it leaned over as it fell. Look at the pile of
> rubble.
>>
>> WTC 7 had smoke puffs going up the wall just as it started to
>> collapse!
>
> Yes, that's what happens when smoke from an ongoing fire is
> released
> due to collapse. It happens in residential fires too.
>
>>
>> The WTC 7 leaseholder said (on camera) that it was pulled! The
>> leaseholder bought a 99 yr lease on the entire WTC complex just six
>> weeks before 9/11! He wasn't in his North Tower office on 9/11 due to
>> a "doctors appointment"! His lawyers successfully sued to get TWICE
>> the payout claiming it was two separate attacks! The insurance
>> company's structural engineer said (on camera) that the way the
>> vertical columns in the Towers severed simultaneously was just like
>> controlled demolitions! The WTC 7 fire alarm was put into test mode
>> the morning of 9/11!
>
> So what? Nothing there proves a conspiracy. Suppose your a Cessna
> 172
> drops out of the sky and lands on your house while you are at a
> doctor's appointment. Does that make you responsible for the
> destruction?
>>
>>
>> Each Twin Tower was designed withstand the impact on a FULLY LOADED
>> 707! The 767s on 9/11 were UNDERBOOKED! An executive in the WTC
>> Construction Management Company said (on camera) in his opinion the
>> Towers could withstand MULTIPLE 707 crashes! He said a plane crashing
>> into the Towers is the same as a pencil puncturing a window screen --
>> it does NOTHING!
>>
>
> 767 is much bigger than 707 and is more massive even when
> "underbooked." The towers were designed to withstand a single 707.
> Even if they could were designed to take multiple 707 hits and survive
> those strikes would have been spread out over a larger area then a
> single 767 strike. Please try thinking logically.
>
>>
>>
>> It is time to Wake UP! and face the TRUTH
>
> Take your own advice.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




I think you should go back to dropping bombs and leave the thinking to
those who know how to. For you to simply dismiss the WTC 7 collapse the
way you do shows you are not thinking rationally. And for you to dismiss
the other info as a non-conspiracy and automatically assume it's all pure
coincidence, shows you cannot take things into context. Sorry. But I'll
bet you're a great pilot!

[Wake Up!]

mrtravel > wrote in news:MUERf.580$4L1.117
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

> Wake Up! wrote:
>
>> The WTC 7 leaseholder said (on camera) that it was pulled!
>
> Right, he admitted he was involved.. SURE.
>




Watch the video for yourself

http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV




This video (from the same documentary) shows that "pull" means "demolish"

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/pull_wtc6.wmv

[Wake Up!]

"Keith W" > wrote in
:

>
> "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Wake Up!" > wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@
>> 130.81.64.196:
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
>> building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
>> definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
>> framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.
>
> A qualified engineer knows that steel framed buildings can and
> do collapse from fire. Indeed the building codes require fire
> protection material to be applied to structural members to prevent
> such a collapse.
>
> I have in my collection photos of 2 large buildings gutted by fire
> during the London Blitz of 1940, one was steel framed the
> other was built using beams of Baltic oak. The steel framed
> building collapsed, the oak framed building had its timbers
> charred to a depth of 1" but stayed upright



Were those complete collapses? Regardless, we are talking about modern
steel framed skyscrapers. Not those from 60 years ago. Sorry.



> Moreover trusses such as those used in the WTC buildings are
> notoriously prone to such failures, there's an a excellent article
> on the risk associated with trusses at
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/



Interesting how that government info was written *after* 9/11


>
>
> Fire protection cannot ensure that buildings stand indefinitely.
> They are designed to ensure adequate time to evacuate the
> building which is what happened in WTC 7


Okay.

>
>
> Of course if the fire is preceded by an impact that pre-weakens
> the structure and blocks the stairwells from above the impact
> point complete evacuation will not be possible and the building
> will collapse early.


Okay.


>
> ALL the qualified engineers who have reviewed the evidence
> know what caused the WTC collapse and it wasnt thermite
> or explosives, it was fire and impact damage. The evidence
> of truss failure is incontrivertable and the subsequant failure
> mechanism of buckling is clearly evidenced on the video.



They came to that conclusion because the NIST report "does not actually
include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for
collapse initiation were reached".

According to Dr Jones, the evidence for controlled demolitions comes
after collapse initiation.




> The lessons of the WTC collapse is that such truss construction
> techniques should be avoided for high rise buildings, fortunately
> they are not widely used which is why previous high rise
> fires didnt lead to progressive collapse.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
> World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
> Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>



There's an interesting thread here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s=1655712482802a0196a913744121c597
&showtopic=3108

many different opinions.



Also, this paper from a Mechanical Engineering Professor:
www.911blogger.com/2006/03/mechanical-engineering-professor-from.html

[Wake Up!]

" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Wake Up! wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
>> building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
>
> And impact. Yes, they do, and you've got another structural engineer
> telling you so.


Who's the other structural engineer?

[Johnny Bravo]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:37:47 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:

>mrtravel > wrote in news:MUERf.580$4L1.117
:
>
>> Wake Up! wrote:
>>
>>> The WTC 7 leaseholder said (on camera) that it was pulled!
>>
>> Right, he admitted he was involved.. SURE.
>>
>
>
>
>
>Watch the video for yourself
>
>http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV
>
>
>
>
>This video (from the same documentary) shows that "pull" means "demolish"
>
>http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/pull_wtc6.wmv

And when firefighters pull their guys out of a building by saying "pull" that
means that they are going to blow it up when they leave, right?

You're a riot kid.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:56:02 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:

>Were those complete collapses? Regardless, we are talking about modern
>steel framed skyscrapers. Not those from 60 years ago. Sorry.

Apparently over the last 60 years we invented some new sooper dooper sekrit
steel that doesn't expand when heated and violates the laws of physics.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:56:02 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:

>> Moreover trusses such as those used in the WTC buildings are
>> notoriously prone to such failures, there's an a excellent article
>> on the risk associated with trusses at
>>
>> http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/
>
>
>
>Interesting how that government info was written *after* 9/11

No more interesting that wind sheer wasn't really talked about by the NTSB
until it took out an airliner.

[Wake Up!]

Laurence Doering > wrote in news:47oh1kFgko4kU1
@individual.net:

> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:50:53 GMT, Wake Up! > wrote:
>> "Wake Up!" > wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@
>>
>> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
>> building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
>> definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
>> framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.
>
> Which, I guess, means all those engineers who spend so much time
> devising fireproofing materials for steel structural members
> in buildings have been wasting their time all these years.



There's a lot more evidence than what I put above.



>
> Imagine the money that could have been saved in the WTC towers
> alone -- all that fireproofing material sprayed on the buildings'
> steel structure could have been eliminated, and the costly and
> inconvenient effort to update the fire protection that was
> still not completed when the WTC towers collapsed was a
> colossal waste of time.
>
> If only they'd known what you apparently know -- that fire can't
> possibly reduce the yield strength of steel and cause structural
> failure.



I never said that. The chance of all the abnormalities being pure
coincidence is totally absurd.



>
> I guess all those web sites with pictures of what happened to
> the steel structure of Madrid's Windsor Building during a fire
> on February 2005 are fakes too, right?
>
>
> ljd
>

The Madrid Tower was not steel framed. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 were.

The Madrid Tower did not completely colllapse. The Twin Towers and WTC 7
did.

The Madrid Tower was a raging inferno for over 12 hours. The Twin Towers
and WTC 7 were had a few fires for a very short period of time.


The fire in the North Tower was **very small**. If not, why did
firefighters say it wasn't much and that all they needed was a couple of
lines?

[mrtravel]

Wake Up! wrote:
>
> I think you should go back to dropping bombs and leave the thinking to
> those who know how to.

Interesting, you didn't agree with his EXPERT opinion on flying either.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Wake Up!" > wrote:


>
> I think you should go back to dropping bombs and leave the thinking to
> those who know how to. For you to simply dismiss the WTC 7 collapse the
> way you do shows you are not thinking rationally. And for you to dismiss
> the other info as a non-conspiracy and automatically assume it's all pure
> coincidence, shows you cannot take things into context. Sorry. But I'll
> bet you're a great pilot!

Well -- that eliminates the "Wake UP," "TRUTH" and and all the other
howling moonbats that have invaded rec.aviation.piloting and other
newsgroups with their nuthouse postulates. They are postulates because
they don't carry enough credibility to qualify as theories.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:08:30 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:

>The Madrid Tower was a raging inferno for over 12 hours. The Twin Towers
>and WTC 7 were had a few fires for a very short period of time.

WTC burned for more than 7 hours while being fed about 6,000 gallons of
diesel.

[khobar]

"Johnny Bravo" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:56:02 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:
>
> >Were those complete collapses? Regardless, we are talking about modern
> >steel framed skyscrapers. Not those from 60 years ago. Sorry.
>
> Apparently over the last 60 years we invented some new sooper dooper
sekrit
> steel that doesn't expand when heated and violates the laws of physics.

According to Prof. Jones? He should know - he's got a piece of paper in
Physics.

LOL.

Paul Nixon

[Keith W]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith W" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Wake Up!" > wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@
>>> 130.81.64.196:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
>>> building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
>>> definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
>>> framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.
>>
>> A qualified engineer knows that steel framed buildings can and
>> do collapse from fire. Indeed the building codes require fire
>> protection material to be applied to structural members to prevent
>> such a collapse.
>>
>> I have in my collection photos of 2 large buildings gutted by fire
>> during the London Blitz of 1940, one was steel framed the
>> other was built using beams of Baltic oak. The steel framed
>> building collapsed, the oak framed building had its timbers
>> charred to a depth of 1" but stayed upright
>
>
>
> Were those complete collapses? Regardless, we are talking about modern
> steel framed skyscrapers. Not those from 60 years ago. Sorry.
>

The behaviour of steel in fire hasnt changed in 60 years and yes
they were complete collapses

I can cite other cases, the Hotel York in Redcar England was
a 15 storey steel framed hotel that collapsed after a fire
for example

>
>
>> Moreover trusses such as those used in the WTC buildings are
>> notoriously prone to such failures, there's an a excellent article
>> on the risk associated with trusses at
>>
>> http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/
>
>
>
> Interesting how that government info was written *after* 9/11
>

Governments typically react to disasters, its called damage limitation.

>
>>
>>
>> Fire protection cannot ensure that buildings stand indefinitely.
>> They are designed to ensure adequate time to evacuate the
>> building which is what happened in WTC 7
>
>
> Okay.
>
>>
>>
>> Of course if the fire is preceded by an impact that pre-weakens
>> the structure and blocks the stairwells from above the impact
>> point complete evacuation will not be possible and the building
>> will collapse early.
>
>
> Okay.
>
>
>>
>> ALL the qualified engineers who have reviewed the evidence
>> know what caused the WTC collapse and it wasnt thermite
>> or explosives, it was fire and impact damage. The evidence
>> of truss failure is incontrivertable and the subsequant failure
>> mechanism of buckling is clearly evidenced on the video.
>
>
>
> They came to that conclusion because the NIST report "does not actually
> include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for
> collapse initiation were reached".
>

Incorrect, the failure mechanism is clear, stop frame video clearly shows
the outer shell buckle before the inner core collapses

> According to Dr Jones, the evidence for controlled demolitions comes
> after collapse initiation.
>

Its a bit pointless setting off explosives AFTER the collapse has started


Keith

[mrtravel]

Keith W wrote:

>
> Governments typically react to disasters, its called damage limitation.
>

No kidding. You should see how much notice California has now taken of
its levees.

[Wake Up!]

"Keith W" > wrote in
:

>
> "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Keith W" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Wake Up!" > wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@
>>>> 130.81.64.196:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
>>>> framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
>>>> you are definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know
>>>> that steel framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire.
>>>> Never. Sorry.
>>>
>>> A qualified engineer knows that steel framed buildings can and
>>> do collapse from fire. Indeed the building codes require fire
>>> protection material to be applied to structural members to prevent
>>> such a collapse.
>>>
>>> I have in my collection photos of 2 large buildings gutted by fire
>>> during the London Blitz of 1940, one was steel framed the
>>> other was built using beams of Baltic oak. The steel framed
>>> building collapsed, the oak framed building had its timbers
>>> charred to a depth of 1" but stayed upright
>>
>>
>>
>> Were those complete collapses? Regardless, we are talking about
>> modern steel framed skyscrapers. Not those from 60 years ago. Sorry.
>>
>
> The behaviour of steel in fire hasnt changed in 60 years and yes
> they were complete collapses
>
> I can cite other cases, the Hotel York in Redcar England was
> a 15 storey steel framed hotel that collapsed after a fire
> for example


Based on the following quote from Jones' paper, it can be assumed that
the collapses you mention above are not relevant to the current
situation:


A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the
collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides
relevant data.

Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced
high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz,
2001; emphasis added.)

Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:

Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major
fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has
ever collapsed from fire…



The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975;
however, the building survived with minor damage and was
repaired and returned to service.” (Glover, 2002)



That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since)
completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly
symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many
times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a
procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise,
then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers
completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably
without the use of explosives.



Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and
whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the
country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite
suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the
structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile
that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett
said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)



The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting
to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials,
even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the
~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not
hit by a jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this
building.) However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used
incendiaries or explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice
through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled
demolition, and reach the required temperatures. This mystery needs to
be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or
NIST reports.





>>> Moreover trusses such as those used in the WTC buildings are
>>> notoriously prone to such failures, there's an a excellent article
>>> on the risk associated with trusses at
>>>
>>> http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/
>>
>>
>>
>> Interesting how that government info was written *after* 9/11
>>
>
> Governments typically react to disasters, its called damage
> limitation.


Okay



>>>
>>> ALL the qualified engineers who have reviewed the evidence
>>> know what caused the WTC collapse and it wasnt thermite
>>> or explosives, it was fire and impact damage. The evidence
>>> of truss failure is incontrivertable and the subsequant failure
>>> mechanism of buckling is clearly evidenced on the video.
>>
>>
>>
>> They came to that conclusion because the NIST report "does not
>> actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the
>> conditions for collapse initiation were reached".
>>
>
> Incorrect, the failure mechanism is clear, stop frame video clearly
> shows the outer shell buckle before the inner core collapses



It only appears clear to those who do not want to look into it deeper.
If one says there's no reason to do so, they're assuming the
government's version must be right, and therefore no need to explore
further.



>
>> According to Dr Jones, the evidence for controlled demolitions comes
>> after collapse initiation.
>>
>
> Its a bit pointless setting off explosives AFTER the collapse has
> started
>
>
> Keith



The Towers' implosions were not typical. They were detonated top down.
Therefore, any engineer truncating the investigation at collapse
initiation will not see the evidence.


Evidence such as... (let's not forget Jones' has a PhD in physics)


quote from paper:

Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may
wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC
Tower on 9-11:
www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg





Top ~ 30 floors of South Tower topple over.

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?



We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a
block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by
the Law of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block
is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still
puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can
we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable,
amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports
failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11
report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower
after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005,
p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

[Keith W]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith W" > wrote in
> :
>

>>
>> The behaviour of steel in fire hasnt changed in 60 years and yes
>> they were complete collapses
>>
>> I can cite other cases, the Hotel York in Redcar England was
>> a 15 storey steel framed hotel that collapsed after a fire
>> for example
>
>
> Based on the following quote from Jones' paper, it can be assumed that
> the collapses you mention above are not relevant to the current
> situation:
>

No they are vidence of how full of **** Jones is.

>
> A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the
> collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides
> relevant data.
>
> Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced
> high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz,
> 2001; emphasis added.)
>

And they were wrong

> Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
>
> Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major
> fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has
> ever collapsed from fire…
>
>
>
> The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975;
> however, the building survived with minor damage and was
> repaired and returned to service.” (Glover, 2002)
>


That fire was confined to approx half of a single floor rather than
several floors and the building had not been damaged by a
major impact.

That makes a difference

>
>
> That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since)
> completely collapsed due to fires!

Incorrect, I have given examples that you choose to ignore

> However, such complete and nearly
> symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many
> times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a
> procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition.

Which requires weeks of careful preparation by large work teams,
none of whom were in evidence at the WTC

<snip>

>
>
>
> The Towers' implosions were not typical. They were detonated top down.
> Therefore, any engineer truncating the investigation at collapse
> initiation will not see the evidence.
>

You dont use explsoives to demolish buildings from the top
down, you blow out the lower floors and some intermediate
floors in a timed sequence


>
> Evidence such as... (let's not forget Jones' has a PhD in physics)
>
>
> quote from paper:
>
> Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may
> wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC
> Tower on 9-11:
> www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg
>
>
>
>
>
> Top ~ 30 floors of South Tower topple over.
>
> What happens to the block and its angular momentum?
>
>
>
> We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a
> block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by
> the Law of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block
> is enormous, as is its angular momentum.

Gravity does not impart torque to a vertical structure, the writer is
a technological imbecile



> But then – and this I’m still
> puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can
> we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?

By the fact that it didnt happen, they hauled thousands of tons of
steel from the remains structures. You couldn't power that much material
with a megaton range hydrogen bomb

More signs of imbecility

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[[email protected]]

Wake Up! wrote:
> " > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> > Wake Up! wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
> >> building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
> >
> > And impact. Yes, they do, and you've got another structural engineer
> > telling you so.
>
>
> Who's the other structural engineer?

Me, but you knew that.

[khobar]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
> "khobar" > wrote in news:p4PRf.556$PE.521@fed1read05:
>
> > "Johnny Bravo" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:56:02 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Were those complete collapses? Regardless, we are talking about modern
> >> >steel framed skyscrapers. Not those from 60 years ago. Sorry.
> >>
> >> Apparently over the last 60 years we invented some new sooper dooper
> > sekrit
> >> steel that doesn't expand when heated and violates the laws of physics.
> >
> > According to Prof. Jones? He should know - he's got a piece of paper in
> > Physics.
> >
> > LOL.
> >
> > Paul Nixon
>
>
>
> Your constant joking only makes you look silly and unable to think

And Prof. Jones still hasn't heard of gravity. Yikes...

Paul Nixon

[Dr. George O. Bizzigotti]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:56:48 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:

>The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting
>to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials,
>even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the
>~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not
>hit by a jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this
>building.) However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used
>incendiaries or explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice
>through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled
>demolition, and reach the required temperatures.

Um, no. Thermite does not reach the temperature required to evaporate
steel. The aluminum component in thermite boils at 4566 degrees F
(2519 degrees C); this effectively limits the temperature of the
molten iron produced in a thermite reaction because once the mixture
reaches the boiling point of aluminum, energy is consumed by boiling
away the aluminum rather than by further heating of the iron. IF iron
evaporated (and that's a big if; most accounts say it "appeared as if
evaporated" without explaining how the observer distinguished between
evaporation and other modes of failure), it wasn't thermite that did
it.

Also note that it takes 10-20 seconds for thermite to ignite and
achieve it's high temperature. Thermite would be a really poor choice
for a controlled demolition for that reason; it would be effectively
impossible to control the timing of the cuts with the precision
required. Controlled demolition uses explosives fired by electrical
signals to achieve the millisecond (or less) precision needed to
control how abuilding fails.

>Evidence such as... (let's not forget Jones' has a PhD in physics)

I'll see your Ph. D. and raise you. My Ph.D. is in chemistry, and I'm
smart enough to know that I'm not qualified as a structural engineer.
A Ph.D. in physics is about as relevant to the discussion of building
collapse as a Ph.D. in comparative literature. Jones' arguments should
be evaluated solely on their merits; his credentials do not entitle
those arguments to any deference at all. I haven't critically examined
all of Jones arguments, but the ones I have reviewed don't impress me:

- 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 with no analysis to support that
assumption.

- Jones assumes that a building should not collapse largely into it's
own footprint without explaining what forces would tend to prevent
such a collapse (hint: entropy is not a force); he also ignores the
considerable amount of debris that landed on surrounding streets and
buildings

- Jones asserts that air expulsion due to collapsing floors is
"excluded" using an equation that ignores the other forces besides
gravity that are at play in a progressive collapse

- Jones suggests that the buildings were collapsed by radio-controlled
detonations using thermite and explosives, but he ignores the
practical timing problem cited above.

Physicists are used to making simplifying assumptions that enable them
to deal with subatomic particles; engineers are used to dealing with
the messier reality of bigger structures like buildings (chemists are
somewhere in between).

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 ***

[Laurence Doering]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:08:30 GMT, Wake Up! > wrote:
> Laurence Doering > wrote in news:47oh1kFgko4kU1
> @individual.net:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:50:53 GMT, Wake Up! > wrote:
>>> "Wake Up!" > wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@
>>>
>>> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
>>> building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
>>> definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
>>> framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.
>>
>> Which, I guess, means all those engineers who spend so much time
>> devising fireproofing materials for steel structural members
>> in buildings have been wasting their time all these years.
>
> There's a lot more evidence than what I put above.

I think the fact that qualified engineers spend a lot of time
and effort figuring out how to protect steel frame members from
fire is extremely strong evidence that they think fires could
cause a steel framed building to collapse, and that they want to
keep that from happening for some reason.

If you have "a lot more evidence" that qualified engineers
are blithely unconcerned about the deleterious effects of
fires on building structures, by all means feel free to post
it.

>> Imagine the money that could have been saved in the WTC towers
>> alone -- all that fireproofing material sprayed on the buildings'
>> steel structure could have been eliminated, and the costly and
>> inconvenient effort to update the fire protection that was
>> still not completed when the WTC towers collapsed was a
>> colossal waste of time.
>>
>> If only they'd known what you apparently know -- that fire can't
>> possibly reduce the yield strength of steel and cause structural
>> failure.
>
> I never said that. The chance of all the abnormalities being pure
> coincidence is totally absurd.

You said:

"A qualified engineer would know that steel framed
buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never."

Unless you're willing to postulate some mysterious magic force
that holds steel-framed buildings up after a fire has weakened
them, you are claiming that fire can't damage steel structures.

Anyone who's ever done any welding knows that's ludicrously
absurd.

>> I guess all those web sites with pictures of what happened to
>> the steel structure of Madrid's Windsor Building during a fire
>> on February 2005 are fakes too, right?
>
> The Madrid Tower was not steel framed. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 were.

The Windsor Tower in Madrid had a reinforced concrete core surrounded by
a steel-framed structure.

> The Madrid Tower did not completely colllapse. The Twin Towers and WTC 7
> did.

The steel-framed portions of the Windsor Tower on and above the levels
affected by the fire did completely collapse. Google for pictures of
the building after the fire, and notice how the concrete core was all
that remained standing of the entire upper half of the building.

Google will also tell you that the Windsor Tower was described
as having been "destroyed" by the fire, that Madrid officials
believed there was a very good chance the entire building would
collapse after the fire was out, and that the remains of
the tower have since been demolished.

> The Madrid Tower was a raging inferno for over 12 hours. The Twin Towers
> and WTC 7 were had a few fires for a very short period of time.

WTC 1 and 2 burned about as intensely as you might want from the
time the fires began until the towers collapsed, and fires continued
burning in the rubble pile for weeks.

WTC 7 burned out of control for at least 7 hours before collapsing.

The Windsor Tower fire began about midnight, and photos of the
fire show the steel frame failed completely while it was still
dark. This means that, even though it took almost 24 hours for
Madrid firefighters to extinguish the fire, the steel frame
collapsed much sooner, before daybreak on the night the fire
began.

> The fire in the North Tower was **very small**.

Says you. If it was "very small", why does all the available video
of the north tower during the time between impact and collapse show
a massive smoke plume that could only come from a large fire? What
about all the video that shows visible fire on multiple floors?

More to the point, why did hundreds of people jump to certain death
from the north tower if there was only a "very small" fire? Why
didn't they stay put and wait to be rescued?

> If not, why did firefighters say it wasn't much and that all they
> needed was a couple of lines?

Because you're quoting them out of context. Feel free to provide
proof that the FDNY believed there was only a "very small" fire
burning in WTC 1.


ljd

[Johnny Bravo]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:56:48 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:

>Based on the following quote from Jones' paper, it can be assumed that
>the collapses you mention above are not relevant to the current
>situation:

>Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced
>high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz,
>2001; emphasis added.)

Speaking of relevant to the current situation, how many modern,
steel-reinforced high-rise buildings before 9/11 have been hit by modern
airliners?

[Johnny Bravo]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:56:48 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:

>building.) However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used
>incendiaries or explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice
>through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled
>demolition, and reach the required temperatures. This mystery needs to
>be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or
>NIST reports.

Explosives don't "slice" steel, they shatter it. Nearly all the steel will
still be there, just in a bunch of small pieces.

You've been told this before, now you're just lying.

[TRUTH]

"Keith W" > wrote in
:

>
> "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Keith W" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>
>>>
>>> The behaviour of steel in fire hasnt changed in 60 years and yes
>>> they were complete collapses
>>>
>>> I can cite other cases, the Hotel York in Redcar England was
>>> a 15 storey steel framed hotel that collapsed after a fire
>>> for example
>>
>>
>> Based on the following quote from Jones' paper, it can be assumed
>> that the collapses you mention above are not relevant to the current
>> situation:
>>
>
> No they are vidence of how full of **** Jones is.
>
>>
>> A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the
>> collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,”
>> provides relevant data.
>>
>> Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced
>> high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.
>> (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
>>
>
> And they were wrong
>
>> Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
>>
>> Almost all large buildings will be the location for a
>> major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise
>> building has ever collapsed from fire…
>>
>>
>>
>> The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975;
>> however, the building survived with minor damage and was
>> repaired and returned to service.” (Glover, 2002)
>>
>
>
> That fire was confined to approx half of a single floor rather than
> several floors and the building had not been damaged by a
> major impact.
>
> That makes a difference
>
>>
>>
>> That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since)
>> completely collapsed due to fires!
>
> Incorrect, I have given examples that you choose to ignore
>
>> However, such complete and nearly
>> symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred
>> many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in
>> a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition.
>
> Which requires weeks of careful preparation by large work teams,
> none of whom were in evidence at the WTC
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> The Towers' implosions were not typical. They were detonated top
>> down. Therefore, any engineer truncating the investigation at
>> collapse initiation will not see the evidence.
>>
>
> You dont use explsoives to demolish buildings from the top
> down, you blow out the lower floors and some intermediate
> floors in a timed sequence






Except when demolishing unique structures like the Twin Towers. Besides,
the government couldn't make controlled demolitions *too* obvious





>
>> Evidence such as... (let's not forget Jones' has a PhD in physics)
>>
>>
>> quote from paper:
>>
>> Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may
>> wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC
>> Tower on 9-11:
>> www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Top ~ 30 floors of South Tower topple over.
>>
>> What happens to the block and its angular momentum?
>>
>>
>>
>> We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a
>> block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored
>> by the Law of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this
>> block is enormous, as is its angular momentum.
>
> Gravity does not impart torque to a vertical structure, the writer is
> a technological imbecile
>
>
>
>> But then – and this I’m still
>> puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How
>> can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?
>
> By the fact that it didnt happen, they hauled thousands of tons of
> steel from the remains structures. You couldn't power that much
> material with a megaton range hydrogen bomb
>
> More signs of imbecility
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
> World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
> Total Privacy via Encryption =----




By your tone / name calling, you sound a bit upset. Perhaps because you
think there's something to Jones' claims afterall? I noticed you snipped
out one of Jones' main points from my response, regarding NIST not
performing analysis after collapse inituation.

[TRUTH]

" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Wake Up! wrote:
>> " > wrote in
>> oups.com:
>>
>> > Wake Up! wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >>
>> >> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
>> >> framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
>> >
>> > And impact. Yes, they do, and you've got another structural
>> > engineer
>> > telling you so.
>>
>>
>> Who's the other structural engineer?
>
> Me, but you knew that.
>



Okay, in that case, kindly explain Jones' 17 points. To discredit his
claims, all 17 points much be addressed and explained why they are not
relavent. Thank you.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

PS You should consider joining ST911. A structural engineer on their
panel would be very helpful

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> " > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
>> Wake Up! wrote:
>>> " > wrote in
>>> oups.com:
>>>
>>>> Wake Up! wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
>>>>> framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
>>>> And impact. Yes, they do, and you've got another structural
>>>> engineer
>>>> telling you so.
>>>
>>> Who's the other structural engineer?
>> Me, but you knew that.
>>
>
>
>
> Okay, in that case, kindly explain Jones' 17 points. To discredit his
> claims, all 17 points much be addressed and explained why they are not
> relavent.


Most, if not all, of his "points" have been repeatedly proved wrong.
You refuse to accept the expert's opinion you keep asking for. The
problem is YOU can't prove anything he says is correct and keep reating
what you KNOW is false. That makes you a liar.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> "Keith W" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Keith W" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> The behaviour of steel in fire hasnt changed in 60 years and yes
>>>> they were complete collapses
>>>>
>>>> I can cite other cases, the Hotel York in Redcar England was
>>>> a 15 storey steel framed hotel that collapsed after a fire
>>>> for example
>>>
>>> Based on the following quote from Jones' paper, it can be assumed
>>> that the collapses you mention above are not relevant to the current
>>> situation:
>>>
>> No they are vidence of how full of **** Jones is.
>>
>>> A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the
>>> collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,”
>>> provides relevant data.
>>>
>>> Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced
>>> high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.
>>> (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
>>>
>> And they were wrong
>>
>>> Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
>>>
>>> Almost all large buildings will be the location for a
>>> major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise
>>> building has ever collapsed from fire…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975;
>>> however, the building survived with minor damage and was
>>> repaired and returned to service.” (Glover, 2002)
>>>
>>
>> That fire was confined to approx half of a single floor rather than
>> several floors and the building had not been damaged by a
>> major impact.
>>
>> That makes a difference
>>
>>>
>>> That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since)
>>> completely collapsed due to fires!
>> Incorrect, I have given examples that you choose to ignore
>>
>>> However, such complete and nearly
>>> symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred
>>> many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in
>>> a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition.
>> Which requires weeks of careful preparation by large work teams,
>> none of whom were in evidence at the WTC
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Towers' implosions were not typical. They were detonated top
>>> down. Therefore, any engineer truncating the investigation at
>>> collapse initiation will not see the evidence.
>>>
>> You dont use explsoives to demolish buildings from the top
>> down, you blow out the lower floors and some intermediate
>> floors in a timed sequence
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Except when demolishing unique structures like the Twin Towers. Besides,
> the government couldn't make controlled demolitions *too* obvious


You never did answer my question: how did they hide the preparations
required for a controlled demolition? Where did they put all the debris
they would have had to remove in preparation? How come no one noticed a
daily line of dump trucks hauling away the debris? Remember walls,
windows, and structural members are always removed in preparation for
controlled demolitions. What about all the structural members that had
to be weakened with torch cuts? How about the several thousands of feet
of det cord and charges placed in plain view? It would have taken weeks
and much manpower just to prepare the buildings. How come no one
noticed? Why do you keep refusing to answer?

>
>
>
>
>
>>> Evidence such as... (let's not forget Jones' has a PhD in physics)
>>>
>>>
>>> quote from paper:
>>>
>>> Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may
>>> wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC
>>> Tower on 9-11:
>>> www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Top ~ 30 floors of South Tower topple over.
>>>
>>> What happens to the block and its angular momentum?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a
>>> block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored
>>> by the Law of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this
>>> block is enormous, as is its angular momentum.
>> Gravity does not impart torque to a vertical structure, the writer is
>> a technological imbecile
>>
>>
>>
>>> But then – and this I’m still
>>> puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How
>>> can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?
>> By the fact that it didnt happen, they hauled thousands of tons of
>> steel from the remains structures. You couldn't power that much
>> material with a megaton range hydrogen bomb
>>
>> More signs of imbecility
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
>> News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
>> World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
>> Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
>
>
>
> By your tone / name calling, you sound a bit upset. Perhaps because you
> think there's something to Jones' claims afterall? I noticed you snipped
> out one of Jones' main points from my response, regarding NIST not
> performing analysis after collapse inituation.

You have a history of name calling yourself. Why would NIST need to
do an analysis after initiation of collapse when they already proved
what how it started? It was simply a chain reaction.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Johnny Bravo]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:11:31 -0600, Dan > wrote:

> You never did answer my question: how did they hide the preparations
>required for a controlled demolition? Where did they put all the debris
>they would have had to remove in preparation? How come no one noticed a
>daily line of dump trucks hauling away the debris? Remember walls,
>windows, and structural members are always removed in preparation for
>controlled demolitions. What about all the structural members that had
>to be weakened with torch cuts? How about the several thousands of feet
>of det cord and charges placed in plain view? It would have taken weeks
>and much manpower just to prepare the buildings. How come no one
>noticed? Why do you keep refusing to answer?


Any why didn't any of this stuff go off when the plane hit it. Top down
demoliton requires explosives on every floor (since "truth" refuses to believe
the pancake theory is even possible).

[TRUTH]

Laurence Doering > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:08:30 GMT, Wake Up! > wrote:
>> Laurence Doering > wrote in news:47oh1kFgko4kU1
>> @individual.net:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:50:53 GMT, Wake Up! > wrote:
>>>> "Wake Up!" > wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@
>>>>
>>>> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
>>>> framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
>>>> you are definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know
>>>> that steel framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire.
>>>> Never. Sorry.
>>>
>>> Which, I guess, means all those engineers who spend so much time
>>> devising fireproofing materials for steel structural members
>>> in buildings have been wasting their time all these years.
>>
>> There's a lot more evidence than what I put above.
>
> I think the fact that qualified engineers spend a lot of time
> and effort figuring out how to protect steel frame members from
> fire is extremely strong evidence that they think fires could
> cause a steel framed building to collapse, and that they want to
> keep that from happening for some reason.
>
> If you have "a lot more evidence" that qualified engineers
> are blithely unconcerned about the deleterious effects of
> fires on building structures, by all means feel free to post
> it.
>
>>> Imagine the money that could have been saved in the WTC towers
>>> alone -- all that fireproofing material sprayed on the buildings'
>>> steel structure could have been eliminated, and the costly and
>>> inconvenient effort to update the fire protection that was
>>> still not completed when the WTC towers collapsed was a
>>> colossal waste of time.
>>>
>>> If only they'd known what you apparently know -- that fire can't
>>> possibly reduce the yield strength of steel and cause structural
>>> failure.
>>
>> I never said that. The chance of all the abnormalities being pure
>> coincidence is totally absurd.
>
> You said:
>
> "A qualified engineer would know that steel framed
> buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never."
>
> Unless you're willing to postulate some mysterious magic force
> that holds steel-framed buildings up after a fire has weakened
> them, you are claiming that fire can't damage steel structures.
>
> Anyone who's ever done any welding knows that's ludicrously
> absurd.
>
>>> I guess all those web sites with pictures of what happened to
>>> the steel structure of Madrid's Windsor Building during a fire
>>> on February 2005 are fakes too, right?
>>
>> The Madrid Tower was not steel framed. The Twin Towers and WTC 7
>> were.
>
> The Windsor Tower in Madrid had a reinforced concrete core surrounded
> by a steel-framed structure.
>
>> The Madrid Tower did not completely colllapse. The Twin Towers and
>> WTC 7 did.
>
> The steel-framed portions of the Windsor Tower on and above the levels
> affected by the fire did completely collapse. Google for pictures of
> the building after the fire, and notice how the concrete core was all
> that remained standing of the entire upper half of the building.
>
> Google will also tell you that the Windsor Tower was described
> as having been "destroyed" by the fire, that Madrid officials
> believed there was a very good chance the entire building would
> collapse after the fire was out, and that the remains of
> the tower have since been demolished.
>
>> The Madrid Tower was a raging inferno for over 12 hours. The Twin
>> Towers and WTC 7 were had a few fires for a very short period of
>> time.
>
> WTC 1 and 2 burned about as intensely as you might want from the
> time the fires began until the towers collapsed, and fires continued
> burning in the rubble pile for weeks.
>
> WTC 7 burned out of control for at least 7 hours before collapsing.
>
> The Windsor Tower fire began about midnight, and photos of the
> fire show the steel frame failed completely while it was still
> dark. This means that, even though it took almost 24 hours for
> Madrid firefighters to extinguish the fire, the steel frame
> collapsed much sooner, before daybreak on the night the fire
> began.
>
>> The fire in the North Tower was **very small**.
>
> Says you. If it was "very small", why does all the available video
> of the north tower during the time between impact and collapse show
> a massive smoke plume that could only come from a large fire? What
> about all the video that shows visible fire on multiple floors?
>
> More to the point, why did hundreds of people jump to certain death
> from the north tower if there was only a "very small" fire? Why
> didn't they stay put and wait to be rescued?



They did not jump. Many were shaken out of the Towers from the
explosions, and can be horribly viewed in the video 9/11 Eyewitness.



>
>> If not, why did firefighters say it wasn't much and that all they
>> needed was a couple of lines?
>
> Because you're quoting them out of context. Feel free to provide
> proof that the FDNY believed there was only a "very small" fire
> burning in WTC 1.
>
>
> ljd
>


This is regarding WTC 2, not 1:


excerpt from http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html


Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say
"Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to
knock it down with two lines." The widow of Chief Palmer was allowed to
hear the tape before excerpts were released by the Times. She said:
I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to
the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without
fear, and selflessly.

Palmer called for a pair of engine companies to fight the fires. The fact
that veteran firefighters showed no sign of fear or panic, and had a
coherent plan for fighting the fire, contradicts the official explanation
of the collapses that the fires were so hot and extensive that they
weakened the steel structure

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:HX2Sf.61662$Ug4.7991@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> "Keith W" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Keith W" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> The behaviour of steel in fire hasnt changed in 60 years and yes
>>>>> they were complete collapses
>>>>>
>>>>> I can cite other cases, the Hotel York in Redcar England was
>>>>> a 15 storey steel framed hotel that collapsed after a fire
>>>>> for example
>>>>
>>>> Based on the following quote from Jones' paper, it can be assumed
>>>> that the collapses you mention above are not relevant to the
>>>> current situation:
>>>>
>>> No they are vidence of how full of **** Jones is.
>>>
>>>> A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the
>>>> collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,”
>>>> provides relevant data.
>>>>
>>>> Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced
>>>> high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.
>>>> (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
>>>>
>>> And they were wrong
>>>
>>>> Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
>>>>
>>>> Almost all large buildings will be the location for a
>>>> major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise
>>>> building has ever collapsed from fire…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in
>>>> 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage
>>>> and was repaired and returned to service.” (Glover,
>>>> 2002)
>>>>
>>>
>>> That fire was confined to approx half of a single floor rather than
>>> several floors and the building had not been damaged by a
>>> major impact.
>>>
>>> That makes a difference
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since)
>>>> completely collapsed due to fires!
>>> Incorrect, I have given examples that you choose to ignore
>>>
>>>> However, such complete and nearly
>>>> symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred
>>>> many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives
>>>> in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition.
>>> Which requires weeks of careful preparation by large work teams,
>>> none of whom were in evidence at the WTC
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Towers' implosions were not typical. They were detonated top
>>>> down. Therefore, any engineer truncating the investigation at
>>>> collapse initiation will not see the evidence.
>>>>
>>> You dont use explsoives to demolish buildings from the top
>>> down, you blow out the lower floors and some intermediate
>>> floors in a timed sequence
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Except when demolishing unique structures like the Twin Towers.
>> Besides, the government couldn't make controlled demolitions *too*
>> obvious
>
>
> You never did answer my question: how did they hide the
> preparations
> required for a controlled demolition? Where did they put all the
> debris they would have had to remove in preparation? How come no one
> noticed a daily line of dump trucks hauling away the debris? Remember
> walls, windows, and structural members are always removed in
> preparation for controlled demolitions. What about all the structural
> members that had to be weakened with torch cuts? How about the several
> thousands of feet of det cord and charges placed in plain view? It
> would have taken weeks and much manpower just to prepare the
> buildings. How come no one noticed? Why do you keep refusing to
> answer?


The only info I have is the power down in the South Tower:
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html

Also, GWB's brother Marvin, and a cousin were executives in the WTC's
security company




>>
>> By your tone / name calling, you sound a bit upset. Perhaps because
>> you think there's something to Jones' claims afterall? I noticed you
>> snipped out one of Jones' main points from my response, regarding
>> NIST not performing analysis after collapse inituation.
>
> You have a history of name calling yourself.


Only in direct retaliation.





> Why would NIST need to
> do an analysis after initiation of collapse when they already proved
> what how it started? It was simply a chain reaction.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Perhaps to learn clues to prevent a complete, freefall "fire induced"
collapse from happening again, especially since:

It never happened before, but on 9/11 it happened three times. An
executive in the WTC Management said in his opinion the Towers could
withstand multiple 707 impacts, and compared it to a pencil puncturing a
screen netting. Firefighters made it up to the impact area of the South
Tower and suggested nothing major.



Also, are you aware that NIST literally "changed" the data in their
computer simulation to get the Towers to collapse? And now they refuse to
show the simulations to leading fire engineers who call for them.



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

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.)



I also agree with Kevin Ryan’s objections regarding the NIST study.
Kevin Ryan, at the time a manager at Underwriters Laboratories (UL),
makes a point of the non-collapse of actual WTC-based models in his
letter to Frank Gayle of NIST:


As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel
components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting
information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last
year… they suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working
with your team… I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing
tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests…
indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal
stress caused by… burning [jet fuel, paper, etc.]. (Ryan, 2004)



That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to
fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to
obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC
towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for
approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was
cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of
collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test
results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting
exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the
conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test]
results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining
a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of
time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on
September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)



So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models
fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise
collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for
very “severe” cases, called cases B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of
course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration
of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.



Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of
their Final Report:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the
instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.
For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable
collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural
behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were
reached...(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only
proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse”, thus ignoring any
data from that time on.

The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each
tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building
became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...(NIST, 2005, p. 142;
emphasis added.)



What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the
buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna
dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed
in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well?
Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the
buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at
ALL the data, without computer simulations that are “adjusted,” perhaps
to make them fit the desired outcome. An hypothesis which is non-
refutable is non-scientific. On the other hand, Occam's razor suggests
that the simplest explanation which addresses and satisfies ALL the
evidence is most probably correct.



14. Support from New Civil Engineering Article



An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) has
come to my attention at the end of the draft-process which lends support
to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:

World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to
show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite
calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the
type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.
The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of
the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of
Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….

University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin
Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural
response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the
opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any
errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said….

A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous
resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By
comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said.
“The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there
have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.”
(Parker, 2005; emphasis added.)


Here we have serious concerns about the NIST WTC collapse report raised
by structural and fire engineers, augmenting the arguments raised here by
a physicist.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:34:28 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> k.net:
>
> > In article >,
> > on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:04:10 GMT,
> > Wake Up! attempted to say .....
> >
> >> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> >> k.net:
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:25:07 GMT,
> >> > Wake Up! attempted to say .....
> >> >
> >> >> "khobar" > wrote in
> >> >> news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> "khobar" > wrote in
> >> >> >> news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > "Keith W" > wrote in
> >> >> >> > message ...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> >> >> >> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way
> >> >> >> >> you are aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings
> >> >> >> >> arent you ?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since
> >> >> >> > thermite isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it
> >> >> >> > being used. Har har har de har har.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Paul Nixon
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I
> >> >> >> guess to a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially
> >> >> >> evaporate steel? Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures
> >> >> >> that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal
> >> >> >> dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were those three items
> >> >> >> present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers aren't able
> >> >> >> to take everything into context, and instead give silly reasons
> >> >> >> for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
> >> >> >> your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a
> >> >> > nuclear reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
> >> >> > the WTC? Yes. Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like
> >> >> > in the videos? Yes. Were these three items present at the WTC?
> >> >> > Yes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Oops...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Paul Nixon
> >> >> >
> >> >> Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget that
> >> >> hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His
> >> >> supporters are growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence
> >> >> at his Sept 22 seminar, he convinced 60 faculty members that there
> >> >> should be a new investigation.
> >> >
> >> > Why all the evidence is in the proofs you keep posting !
> >> >
> >> > And the investigation those faculty members think should happen ?
> >> > Why do I suspect they want to know how Dr Jones came to his degree
> >> > in structural engineering
> >>
> >>
> >> This is what they're calling for:
> >> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399
> >>
> >> Jones' has a PhD in physics, so he should be qualified to determine
> >> in the government's version of the collapses defy phsyics.
> >
> > So he has no background in structural engineering ?
> > Nor the mechanics of matertials either I take it.
> >
> > A degree in physics is just that.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Watch the video of the South Tower collapse below.
>


So you do not intend to discuss Dr Jones lack of training in
structural engineering or materials science.





--
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 Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:20:47 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

> mrtravel > wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
> @newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
>
> > Wake Up! wrote:
> >>
> >> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
> >> building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
> >> definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
> >> framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.
> >
> > You claim it was thermite.
> > There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
> > But, don't let the facts bother you.
> > You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the info
> > you post yourself.
>
>
>
>
> No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's the
> ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.

#1 Thermite is NOT a cutter explosive.


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

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:


> Perhaps to learn clues to prevent a complete, freefall "fire induced"
> collapse from happening again, especially since:
>
> It never happened before, but on 9/11 it happened three times. An
> executive in the WTC Management said in his opinion the Towers could
> withstand multiple 707 impacts, and compared it to a pencil puncturing a
> screen netting. Firefighters made it up to the impact area of the South
> Tower and suggested nothing major.

And -- White Star proclaimed the Titanic to be "unsinkable", too.


> Also, are you aware that NIST literally "changed" the data in their
> computer simulation to get the Towers to collapse? And now they refuse to
> show the simulations to leading fire engineers who call for them.

That is what you do when analysing any kind of system failure or test.
When you perform a test or failure analysis, you build a computer model,
as best you can, and then change paramaters until you duplicate the
observed phenomena. Of course, you would change the data (weaken or
remove structural members from the simulation, etc.) until you get an
understanding of what actually failed.

I doubt that fire engineers would understand the dynamics of structural
failure -- they are interested (and trained) in fireproofing,
firefighting and fire prevention -- not how a building came down when
hit by the equivalent of a 1KT weapon.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:53:00 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

>
>
>
> By your tone / name calling, you sound a bit upset. Perhaps because you
> think there's something to Jones' claims afterall? I noticed you snipped
> out one of Jones' main points from my response, regarding NIST not
> performing analysis after collapse inituation.

This brings to mind a line from a famous Katherine Hepburn movie,

" The Loons, the Loons......"



--
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 Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:01:42 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

>
> Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say
> "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to
> knock it down with two lines." The widow of Chief Palmer was allowed to
> hear the tape before excerpts were released by the Times. She said:
> I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to
> the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without
> fear, and selflessly.
>
> Palmer called for a pair of engine companies to fight the fires. The fact
> that veteran firefighters showed no sign of fear or panic, and had a
> coherent plan for fighting the fire, contradicts the official explanation
> of the collapses that the fires were so hot and extensive that they
> weakened the steel structure

All you prove here is that there were some incredibly brave and professional
fire fighters working for the NYFD.

I'm not sure how you can make your leap from that fact to your ideas.


--
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 14 Mar 2006 18:02:06 GMT,
Laurence Doering attempted to say .....

> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:15:27 -0500, Scott M. Kozel > wrote:
> > "Wake UP!" > wrote:
> >>
> >> Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> >> http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> >
> > That most likely is melting aluminum. It has been said to be likely
> > that aircraft wreckage piled up in that corner of the South Tower.
>
> You don't even need aircraft wreckage for aluminum to have been
> the source of the sparks and apparently molten material. The
> external metal sheathing on the World Trade Center towers was
> an aluminum alloy [1].
>
> Aluminum's melting point is around 1,200 degrees F, a temperature
> that's easily reached in building fires.

Add the tons of material in office partitions and furniture. Not to mention the
plastics.


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

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:HX2Sf.61662$Ug4.7991@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> "Keith W" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Keith W" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> The behaviour of steel in fire hasnt changed in 60 years and yes
>>>>>> they were complete collapses
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can cite other cases, the Hotel York in Redcar England was
>>>>>> a 15 storey steel framed hotel that collapsed after a fire
>>>>>> for example
>>>>> Based on the following quote from Jones' paper, it can be assumed
>>>>> that the collapses you mention above are not relevant to the
>>>>> current situation:
>>>>>
>>>> No they are vidence of how full of **** Jones is.
>>>>
>>>>> A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the
>>>>> collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,”
>>>>> provides relevant data.
>>>>>
>>>>> Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced
>>>>> high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.
>>>>> (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
>>>>>
>>>> And they were wrong
>>>>
>>>>> Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost all large buildings will be the location for a
>>>>> major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise
>>>>> building has ever collapsed from fire…
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in
>>>>> 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage
>>>>> and was repaired and returned to service.” (Glover,
>>>>> 2002)
>>>>>
>>>> That fire was confined to approx half of a single floor rather than
>>>> several floors and the building had not been damaged by a
>>>> major impact.
>>>>
>>>> That makes a difference
>>>>
>>>>> That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since)
>>>>> completely collapsed due to fires!
>>>> Incorrect, I have given examples that you choose to ignore
>>>>
>>>>> However, such complete and nearly
>>>>> symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred
>>>>> many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives
>>>>> in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition.
>>>> Which requires weeks of careful preparation by large work teams,
>>>> none of whom were in evidence at the WTC
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Towers' implosions were not typical. They were detonated top
>>>>> down. Therefore, any engineer truncating the investigation at
>>>>> collapse initiation will not see the evidence.
>>>>>
>>>> You dont use explsoives to demolish buildings from the top
>>>> down, you blow out the lower floors and some intermediate
>>>> floors in a timed sequence
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Except when demolishing unique structures like the Twin Towers.
>>> Besides, the government couldn't make controlled demolitions *too*
>>> obvious
>>
>> You never did answer my question: how did they hide the
>> preparations
>> required for a controlled demolition? Where did they put all the
>> debris they would have had to remove in preparation? How come no one
>> noticed a daily line of dump trucks hauling away the debris? Remember
>> walls, windows, and structural members are always removed in
>> preparation for controlled demolitions. What about all the structural
>> members that had to be weakened with torch cuts? How about the several
>> thousands of feet of det cord and charges placed in plain view? It
>> would have taken weeks and much manpower just to prepare the
>> buildings. How come no one noticed? Why do you keep refusing to
>> answer?
>
>
> The only info I have is the power down in the South Tower:
> http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
> http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html


In other words you can't answer my questions. A "power down" does not
indicate anything sinister. Are you trying to tell us "they" did a few
week's work in less that 24 hours? Even if "they" could who made all the
debris vanish and why didn't anyone notice the prepwork Monday morning?

Do you not see why your theory makes no sense whatever?

>
> Also, GWB's brother Marvin, and a cousin were executives in the WTC's
> security company

And his brother Jeb is governor of Florida and his wife was a
librarian and his mother has gray hair and the sun was shining that day
and Alaska has ice...etc. So what?

>
>
>
>
>>> By your tone / name calling, you sound a bit upset. Perhaps because
>>> you think there's something to Jones' claims afterall? I noticed you
>>> snipped out one of Jones' main points from my response, regarding
>>> NIST not performing analysis after collapse inituation.
>> You have a history of name calling yourself.
>
>
> Only in direct retaliation.

Negative.

>
>> Why would NIST need to
>> do an analysis after initiation of collapse when they already proved
>> what how it started? It was simply a chain reaction.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> Perhaps to learn clues to prevent a complete, freefall "fire induced"
> collapse from happening again, especially since:
>
> It never happened before, but on 9/11 it happened three times. An
> executive in the WTC Management said in his opinion the Towers could
> withstand multiple 707 impacts, and compared it to a pencil puncturing a
> screen netting. Firefighters made it up to the impact area of the South
> Tower and suggested nothing major.

Already addressed.


>
> Also, are you aware that NIST literally "changed" the data in their
> computer simulation to get the Towers to collapse? And now they refuse to
> show the simulations to leading fire engineers who call for them.

I bet they did change data entries. It's part of what one does in
simulations. Once they duplicate what happened they will know what
caused it by the data they entered. You are not conversant in this area
so I suggest you accept the responses from the experts you keep asking.
>
>
>
> From Jones' paper:
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>

Let me try to explain this again. His paper has been debunked many
times. He may be a physicist but he is a theoretical physicist as
opposed to a structural engineer who uses applied physics. Jones is a
fool and so is anyone who uses his paper as a basis for disbelieving the
government's story.

You keep asking for expert opinion then blowing off what you hear. By
your own admission you don't understand the science and math involved
yet you doubt those of us who do. Remember when you tried to tell us
jetliners use diesel fuel, a squib is a puff of smoke, the ground is not
visible from 34,000 feet etc? You are really coming across as a bit
silly in all this.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>
>> Perhaps to learn clues to prevent a complete, freefall "fire induced"
>> collapse from happening again, especially since:
>>
>> It never happened before, but on 9/11 it happened three times. An
>> executive in the WTC Management said in his opinion the Towers could
>> withstand multiple 707 impacts, and compared it to a pencil puncturing a
>> screen netting. Firefighters made it up to the impact area of the South
>> Tower and suggested nothing major.
>
> And -- White Star proclaimed the Titanic to be "unsinkable", too.
>

Not to mention WTC management were business types not engineers and
thus were not in a position to provide an educated opinion such as that.

I know WTC was designed to withstand a fully fueled and loaded 707
strike, but multiples? I dunno, I doubt it. It's irrelevant anyway since
a single 767 strike is different than multiple strikes by 707 or any
other aircraft. The fact remains the buildings were not designed to
withstand a 767 strike simply because 767 didn't exist at the time the
requirement was made.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:
>
> Okay, in that case, kindly explain Jones' 17 points. To discredit his
> claims, all 17 points much be addressed and explained why they are not
> relavent. Thank you.
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Why? Everytime someone disputes something, you don't believe them.

Also, his own peers don't agree with them, why go much further?

>
> PS You should consider joining ST911. A structural engineer on their
> panel would be very helpful

It makes sense that you admit they aren't qualified, and we know that
Dr. Jones isn't.

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:

> They did not jump. Many were shaken out of the Towers from the
> explosions, and can be horribly viewed in the video 9/11 Eyewitness.
>

What if I told you there is video that clearly shows some people jumping?

[Johnny Bravo]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:40:31 -0600, Dan > wrote:

>> The only info I have is the power down in the South Tower:
>> http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
>> http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html
>
>
> In other words you can't answer my questions. A "power down" does not
>indicate anything sinister. Are you trying to tell us "they" did a few
>week's work in less that 24 hours?

Why not, he claims the NYFD did a week's work in less than 7 hours inside a
building that was burning out of control (WTC 7) and for an encore the NYPD also
knows all about it but not one individual has come forward to protest the
murders of their friends, family members and co-workers simply because they were
ordered not to say anything.

He's so disconnected from reality that he'll believe anything that he can even
remotely use to support his theory and discard anything which disagrees with it,
no matter how much evidence piles up against him.

[TRUTH]

Tank Fixer > wrote in
k.net:

> In article >,
> on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:34:28 GMT,
> Wake Up! attempted to say .....
>
>> Tank Fixer > wrote in
>> k.net:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:04:10 GMT,
>> > Wake Up! attempted to say .....
>> >
>> >> Tank Fixer > wrote in
>> >> k.net:
>> >>
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:25:07 GMT,
>> >> > Wake Up! attempted to say .....
>> >> >
>> >> >> "khobar" > wrote in
>> >> >> news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
>> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >> "khobar" > wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > "Keith W" > wrote in
>> >> >> >> > message ...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
>> >> >> >> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way
>> >> >> >> >> you are aware that thermite isnt used to demolish
buildings
>> >> >> >> >> arent you ?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since
>> >> >> >> > thermite isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it
>> >> >> >> > being used. Har har har de har har.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Paul Nixon
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I
>> >> >> >> guess to a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially
>> >> >> >> evaporate steel? Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures
>> >> >> >> that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause
metal
>> >> >> >> dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were those three items
>> >> >> >> present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers aren't
able
>> >> >> >> to take everything into context, and instead give silly
reasons
>> >> >> >> for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on
to
>> >> >> >> your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a
>> >> >> > nuclear reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal
at
>> >> >> > the WTC? Yes. Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like
>> >> >> > in the videos? Yes. Were these three items present at the WTC?
>> >> >> > Yes.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Oops...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Paul Nixon
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget
that
>> >> >> hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His
>> >> >> supporters are growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence
>> >> >> at his Sept 22 seminar, he convinced 60 faculty members that
there
>> >> >> should be a new investigation.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why all the evidence is in the proofs you keep posting !
>> >> >
>> >> > And the investigation those faculty members think should happen ?
>> >> > Why do I suspect they want to know how Dr Jones came to his
degree
>> >> > in structural engineering
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This is what they're calling for:
>> >> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399
>> >>
>> >> Jones' has a PhD in physics, so he should be qualified to determine
>> >> in the government's version of the collapses defy phsyics.
>> >
>> > So he has no background in structural engineering ?
>> > Nor the mechanics of matertials either I take it.
>> >
>> > A degree in physics is just that.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Watch the video of the South Tower collapse below.
>>
>
>
> So you do not intend to discuss Dr Jones lack of training in
> structural engineering or materials science.
>
>
>
>
>

What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a physicist
with a PhD.

[TRUTH]

Tank Fixer > wrote in
.net:

> In article >,
> on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:20:47 GMT,
> Wake Up! attempted to say .....
>
>> mrtravel > wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
>> @newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
>>
>> > Wake Up! wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
>> >> framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
>> >> you are definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know
>> >> that steel framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire.
>> >> Never. Sorry.
>> >
>> > You claim it was thermite.
>> > There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
>> > But, don't let the facts bother you.
>> > You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the
>> > info you post yourself.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's
>> the ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.
>
> #1 Thermite is NOT a cutter explosive.
>
>


red herring. Whether is is a cutter explosive or not, it means nothing to
the points in Jones paper

[Keith W]

"Dan" > wrote in message
news:zU7Sf.62063$Ug4.53088@dukeread12...

>
> I know WTC was designed to withstand a fully fueled and loaded 707
> strike, but multiples? I dunno, I doubt it. It's irrelevant anyway since a
> single 767 strike is different than multiple strikes by 707 or any other
> aircraft. The fact remains the buildings were not designed to withstand a
> 767 strike simply because 767 didn't exist at the time the requirement was
> made.
>

The consulting engineer on the WTC has stated that while
the building was designed to withstand an aircraft strike the
actual event was much more energetic than expected.

The scenario was impact by a 707 on a landing approach
to a New York airport with a low fuel load at a speed of
around 200 knots. What actually happened was a impact by
larger aircraft at more than double that speed with an almost
full fuel load.

As KE rises as a square of velocity this means the impact was
between 4 and 8 times the designed load

The building still withstood the blow but what it couldnt
stand was the subsequent fire which the original scenario
did NOT include.

Keith

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:zU7Sf.62063$Ug4.53088@dukeread12:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> In article >,
>> TRUTH > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps to learn clues to prevent a complete, freefall "fire
>>> induced" collapse from happening again, especially since:
>>>
>>> It never happened before, but on 9/11 it happened three times. An
>>> executive in the WTC Management said in his opinion the Towers could
>>> withstand multiple 707 impacts, and compared it to a pencil
>>> puncturing a screen netting. Firefighters made it up to the impact
>>> area of the South Tower and suggested nothing major.
>>
>> And -- White Star proclaimed the Titanic to be "unsinkable", too.
>>
>
> Not to mention WTC management were business types not engineers and
> thus were not in a position to provide an educated opinion such as
> that.


One of the people who said it was a WTC design engineer. (I'm pretty
sure)




>
> I know WTC was designed to withstand a fully fueled and loaded 707
> strike, but multiples? I dunno, I doubt it. It's irrelevant anyway
> since a single 767 strike is different than multiple strikes by 707 or
> any other aircraft. The fact remains the buildings were not designed
> to withstand a 767 strike simply because 767 didn't exist at the time
> the requirement was made.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>


Whether that's true or not, an argument cannot be made in that manner.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> TRUTH wrote:
> >
> > Okay, in that case, kindly explain Jones' 17 points. To discredit his
> > claims, all 17 points much be addressed and explained why they are not
> > relavent. Thank you.
> > http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
> Why? Everytime someone disputes something, you don't believe them.

Human nature. People like TRUTH just love to believe the unbelievable.

There are two men walking down the street in town. One is in a business
suit, the other is dressed like a clown and juggling 8 balls. Who'er
gonna watch??? :)

--
Duncan

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:

> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> .net:
>
>
>>In article >,
>> on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:20:47 GMT,
>> Wake Up! attempted to say .....
>>
>>
>>>mrtravel > wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Wake Up! wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
>>>>>framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
>>>>>you are definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know
>>>>>that steel framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire.
>>>>>Never. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>>You claim it was thermite.
>>>>There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
>>>>But, don't let the facts bother you.
>>>>You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the
>>>>info you post yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's
>>>the ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.
>>
>>#1 Thermite is NOT a cutter explosive.

>
> red herring. Whether is is a cutter explosive or not, it means nothing to
> the points in Jones paper

Are all of your false beliefs "red herrings"?
Dr Jones is NOT an expert. Why do you have so much faith in his paper?

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in

>>
>>And -- White Star proclaimed the Titanic to be "unsinkable", too.
>
> Okay. Where is the evidence suggesting the titanic did not sink the way
> people think it did?
>

It sank because of bad steel.
Apparently the US government was involved in that conspiracy too.
I think Dr Jones wrote a paper.
>
> Twin Towers expert claims towers could withstand *multiple* 707 crashes

"expert", like the White Star people?

>
> FDNY Chief says just a few isolated fires at South Tower impact area

He was either misquoted or wrong.


>
> NIST "adjusts the input" of the computer simulations to cause them to
> collapse

You have to make adjustments for unknowns.

>
>
> WTC 7 leaseholder buys 99 yr lease on the asbestos-filled Towers just six
> weeks before 9/11.

I thought you said 6 months before.
In any case, if the tower won't fail because of the inflammable steel,
why are asbestos needed?

Leaseholder not in North Tower office on 9/11 due to
> "doctors appointment". Leaseholder says they decided to "pull" WTC 7

What percentage of time was he in the office before 9/11?
What percentage of time does Donald Trump spend at his home office?

>
> WTC 7 fire alarm put into test mode 6:47AM on 9/11

And? If the building is being blown up, what difference does it make?

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:


>>
>> Not to mention WTC management were business types not engineers and
>>thus were not in a position to provide an educated opinion such as
>>that.
>
>
>
> One of the people who said it was a WTC design engineer. (I'm pretty
> sure)
>

Maybe he was wrong.
The scenario was not having a fully fueled 767 crash into the WTC, was it?

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in
. com:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
>
>>>
>>>And -- White Star proclaimed the Titanic to be "unsinkable", too.
>>
>> Okay. Where is the evidence suggesting the titanic did not sink the
>> way people think it did?
>>
>
> It sank because of bad steel.
> Apparently the US government was involved in that conspiracy too.
> I think Dr Jones wrote a paper.



Your silly comments are distracting you from seeing what's important.





>>
>> Twin Towers expert claims towers could withstand *multiple* 707
>> crashes
>
> "expert", like the White Star people?
>
>>
>> FDNY Chief says just a few isolated fires at South Tower impact area
>
> He was either misquoted or wrong.



This is where you are 100% wrong. His voice is on tape and was reported
in the New York Times. The chief in question made it up to the impact
area, as I said in another post. All they needed was a couple lines for
the two isolated pocket fires. He said this just 7 minutes before the
South Tower collapsed.

Are we supposed to believe that it weakened the steel without vaporizing
him? The government's version is beyond belief and unbelievable!


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html




>
>
>>
>> NIST "adjusts the input" of the computer simulations to cause them to
>> collapse
>
> You have to make adjustments for unknowns.


You need to put it all in context


>
>>
>>
>> WTC 7 leaseholder buys 99 yr lease on the asbestos-filled Towers just
>> six weeks before 9/11.
>
> I thought you said 6 months before.
> In any case, if the tower won't fail because of the inflammable steel,
> why are asbestos needed?


6 WEEKS. The point of the asbestos is that it would have been very
expensive to remove with the Towers still standing.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html



> Leaseholder not in North Tower office on 9/11 due to
>> "doctors appointment". Leaseholder says they decided to "pull" WTC 7
>
> What percentage of time was he in the office before 9/11?
> What percentage of time does Donald Trump spend at his home office?



You are not understanding the points in my comments. He was
***supposed*** to be in the North Tower on the morning of 9/11. He wasn't
because he scheduled a doctors appointment.


>
>>
>> WTC 7 fire alarm put into test mode 6:47AM on 9/11
>
> And? If the building is being blown up, what difference does it make?
>

Again, you are not understanding the point. The point is that it was put
in test mode **on the morning of 9/11**. Why? I don't know. It is not
important. It is obvious that it had some connection. What connection? I
don't know. It is not important. You need to understand that coincidences
like this do not happen.

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in
m:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Tank Fixer > wrote in
>> .net:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:20:47 GMT,
>>> Wake Up! attempted to say .....
>>>
>>>
>>>>mrtravel > wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Wake Up! wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
>>>>>>framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
>>>>>>you are definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know
>>>>>>that steel framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire.
>>>>>>Never. Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>>You claim it was thermite.
>>>>>There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
>>>>>But, don't let the facts bother you.
>>>>>You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the
>>>>>info you post yourself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's
>>>>the ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.
>>>
>>>#1 Thermite is NOT a cutter explosive.
>
>>
>> red herring. Whether is is a cutter explosive or not, it means
>> nothing to the points in Jones paper
>
> Are all of your false beliefs "red herrings"?
> Dr Jones is NOT an expert. Why do you have so much faith in his paper?
>
>
>



I had said a while ago that I knew the WTC was professionally demolished
long before I even heard of Dr Jones. The evidence is so obvious, so
overwhelming, and so clear. Jones' paper just helped me understand the
science a bit more. I need not "have faith" in Jones' paper. There is
nothing in it for me to have faith of. I just looked at the verifiable
information, and used my common sense. I don't need a physics professor,
or any other professor to tell me how to examine the evidence. My common
sense is extremely keen. I need not examine it scientifically. There is
too much evidence for it all to be coincidence. It is not normal thinking
to assume it's coincidence. Sorry, coincidences like that do not happen.
They do not.

[[email protected]]

TRUTH wrote:
> " > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> >
> > Wake Up! wrote:
> >> " > wrote in
> >> oups.com:
> >>
> >> > Wake Up! wrote:
> >> > [snip]
> >> >>
> >> >> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
> >> >> framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
> >> >
> >> > And impact. Yes, they do, and you've got another structural
> >> > engineer
> >> > telling you so.
> >>
> >>
> >> Who's the other structural engineer?
> >
> > Me, but you knew that.
> >
>
>
>
> Okay, in that case, kindly explain Jones' 17 points.

Asked and answered counselor, let's move on.

> To discredit his
> claims, all 17 points much be addressed and explained why they are not
> relavent. Thank you.
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
> PS You should consider joining ST911. A structural engineer on their
> panel would be very helpful

No one there wants to hear from an structural engineer.

[khobar]

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> k.net:
>
> > In article >,
> > on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:34:28 GMT,
> > Wake Up! attempted to say .....
> >
> >> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> >> k.net:
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:04:10 GMT,
> >> > Wake Up! attempted to say .....
> >> >
> >> >> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> >> >> k.net:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:25:07 GMT,
> >> >> > Wake Up! attempted to say .....
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "khobar" > wrote in
> >> >> >> news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >> "khobar" > wrote in
> >> >> >> >> news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > "Keith W" > wrote in
> >> >> >> >> > message ...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> >> >> >> >> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way
> >> >> >> >> >> you are aware that thermite isnt used to demolish
> buildings
> >> >> >> >> >> arent you ?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since
> >> >> >> >> > thermite isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it
> >> >> >> >> > being used. Har har har de har har.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Paul Nixon
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I
> >> >> >> >> guess to a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially
> >> >> >> >> evaporate steel? Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures
> >> >> >> >> that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause
> metal
> >> >> >> >> dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were those three items
> >> >> >> >> present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers aren't
> able
> >> >> >> >> to take everything into context, and instead give silly
> reasons
> >> >> >> >> for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on
> to
> >> >> >> >> your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a
> >> >> >> > nuclear reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal
> at
> >> >> >> > the WTC? Yes. Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like
> >> >> >> > in the videos? Yes. Were these three items present at the WTC?
> >> >> >> > Yes.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Oops...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Paul Nixon
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget
> that
> >> >> >> hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His
> >> >> >> supporters are growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence
> >> >> >> at his Sept 22 seminar, he convinced 60 faculty members that
> there
> >> >> >> should be a new investigation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why all the evidence is in the proofs you keep posting !
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And the investigation those faculty members think should happen ?
> >> >> > Why do I suspect they want to know how Dr Jones came to his
> degree
> >> >> > in structural engineering
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This is what they're calling for:
> >> >> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399
> >> >>
> >> >> Jones' has a PhD in physics, so he should be qualified to determine
> >> >> in the government's version of the collapses defy phsyics.
> >> >
> >> > So he has no background in structural engineering ?
> >> > Nor the mechanics of matertials either I take it.
> >> >
> >> > A degree in physics is just that.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Watch the video of the South Tower collapse below.
> >>
> >
> >
> > So you do not intend to discuss Dr Jones lack of training in
> > structural engineering or materials science.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a physicist
> with a PhD.

IOW, he's unqualified. Well done.

Paul Nixon

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Tank Fixer > wrote in
<snip>
>>>
>>
>> So you do not intend to discuss Dr Jones lack of training in
>> structural engineering or materials science.

>>
>
> What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a physicist
> with a PhD.

Forget it, "truth" refuses to understand that being a "physicist with
a PhD" doesn't make one qualified in the subject at hand. If you read
Jone's BYU bio he claims no training in any subject other than physics.
He is not qualified to come to the conclusions "truth" says he has.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> .net:
>
>> In article >,
>> on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:20:47 GMT,
>> Wake Up! attempted to say .....
>>
>>> mrtravel > wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
>>> @newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
>>>
>>>> Wake Up! wrote:
>>>>> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
>>>>> framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
>>>>> you are definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know
>>>>> that steel framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire.
>>>>> Never. Sorry.
>>>> You claim it was thermite.
>>>> There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
>>>> But, don't let the facts bother you.
>>>> You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the
>>>> info you post yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's
>>> the ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.
>> #1 Thermite is NOT a cutter explosive.
>>
>>
>
>
> red herring. Whether is is a cutter explosive or not, it means nothing to
> the points in Jones paper

Then why do you keep bring it up when you know it's wrong? That's
perpetrating a lie. Thermite is NOT an explosive, anyone saying it is is
misinformed, anyone saying it is after being told otherwise is a liar.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:40:31 -0600, Dan > wrote:
>
>>> The only info I have is the power down in the South Tower:
>>> http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
>>> http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html
>>
>> In other words you can't answer my questions. A "power down" does not
>> indicate anything sinister. Are you trying to tell us "they" did a few
>> week's work in less that 24 hours?
>
> Why not, he claims the NYFD did a week's work in less than 7 hours inside a
> building that was burning out of control (WTC 7) and for an encore the NYPD also
> knows all about it but not one individual has come forward to protest the
> murders of their friends, family members and co-workers simply because they were
> ordered not to say anything.
>
> He's so disconnected from reality that he'll believe anything that he can even
> remotely use to support his theory and discard anything which disagrees with it,
> no matter how much evidence piles up against him.
>

Agreed.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

Since you insist on repeating the lies I will repeat the correct
responses.
> One must "see" the government conspiracy to understand this. ALL of the
> information must be looked at and taken into context, not just piece by
> piece:
>
>
> Modern steel framed skyscrapers have NEVER completely collapsed from fire
>
Not true, but then again no other "modern steel structures" have
been deliberately rammed by fully fueled and laden jetliners so the
comparison is meaningless.

> WTC 7 was not hit by a plane

No one has claimed it was so your point is meaningless.

>
> Twin Towers expert claims towers could withstand *multiple* 707 crashes

They weren't struck by "multiple 707" they were each struck by one
767 so your point, even if it were true, is meaningless.
>
> FDNY Chief says just a few isolated fires at South Tower impact area

He was correct as far as that goes, but the fires were massive, just
look at the videos, so your point is meaningless.

>
> NIST does not analyze collapses following collapse initiation (despite
> this is where the controlled demolition evidence lies)

NIST saw no evidence of "controlled demolition" since none exists so
your point is meaningless.

>
> NIST "adjusts the input" of the computer simulations to cause them to
> collapse

That's how simulations are done when determining how an event
occurred so your point is meaningless.

>
> NIST won't show simulations despite calls from leading structural and
> fire engineers
>
This is something you have never proved so your point is meaningless.


> WTC 7 leaseholder buys 99 yr lease on the asbestos-filled Towers just six
> weeks before 9/11. Leaseholder not in North Tower office on 9/11 due to
> "doctors appointment". Leaseholder says they decided to "pull" WTC 7

Since you insist attending doctors' appointments is sinister that
point is meaningless. You insist demolitions people use the term "pull"
means to demolish your point is meaningless since leaseholder is not a
demolition expert.

>
> WTC 7 fire alarm put into test mode 6:47AM on 9/11

The sprinkler heads would still be operable if there had been water
to spray. There wasn't due to the mains being broken by the tower's
collapse. Sprinkler heads have a fusible link which melts when there is
a fire. This opens the valve and water sprays. Since the alarm status
has no effect whatsoever on the sprinkler system your point is meaningless.

>
>
>
> Everything above is 100% correct.

Since I have just proved you wrong in every instance you present you
should stop making that claim.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:zU7Sf.62063$Ug4.53088@dukeread12:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> TRUTH > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Perhaps to learn clues to prevent a complete, freefall "fire
>>>> induced" collapse from happening again, especially since:
>>>>
>>>> It never happened before, but on 9/11 it happened three times. An
>>>> executive in the WTC Management said in his opinion the Towers could
>>>> withstand multiple 707 impacts, and compared it to a pencil
>>>> puncturing a screen netting. Firefighters made it up to the impact
>>>> area of the South Tower and suggested nothing major.
>>> And -- White Star proclaimed the Titanic to be "unsinkable", too.
>>>
>> Not to mention WTC management were business types not engineers and
>> thus were not in a position to provide an educated opinion such as
>> that.
>
>
> One of the people who said it was a WTC design engineer. (I'm pretty
> sure)
>
"Pretty sure" is NOT proof of anything.


>
>
>> I know WTC was designed to withstand a fully fueled and loaded 707
>> strike, but multiples? I dunno, I doubt it. It's irrelevant anyway
>> since a single 767 strike is different than multiple strikes by 707 or
>> any other aircraft. The fact remains the buildings were not designed
>> to withstand a 767 strike simply because 767 didn't exist at the time
>> the requirement was made.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
> Whether that's true or not, an argument cannot be made in that manner.

Are you saying WTC was designed to withstand a fully laden and fueled
767 strike even though 767 wasn't even in the design stage at the time?
Boeing was working on 747 at the time. Or are you saying multiple 707
strikes is the same as a single 767 strike in all regards? If so do an
experiment: get a 9 pound sledge hammer and a 16 ounce ball peen hammer.
No choose three identical walls in your home. On one wall strike a
single blow with the sledge hammer. On another wall strike several blows
with the ball peen hammer each a few inches away from the preceding
blow. On the third wall strike the same number of blows each one in the
same place as the preceding strike. Now stand back and admire your work.
You will notice nothing you did with the ball peen hammer looks even
remotely what you did with the sledge hammer. These results are
reproducible. If enough WTC towers were available similar experiments
could be made and all would be reproducible therefore your claim "an
argument cannot be made" is false.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
TRUTH > smoked some more dope, wet the bed, howled at
the moon and pecked out:

> mrtravel > wrote in
> m:
>
(snip)

> > Are all of your false beliefs "red herrings"?
> > Dr Jones is NOT an expert. Why do you have so much faith in his paper?

>
> I had said a while ago that I knew the WTC was professionally demolished
> long before I even heard of Dr Jones. The evidence is so obvious, so
> overwhelming, and so clear. Jones' paper just helped me understand the
> science a bit more. I need not "have faith" in Jones' paper. There is
> nothing in it for me to have faith of. I just looked at the verifiable
> information, and used my common sense. I don't need a physics professor,
> or any other professor to tell me how to examine the evidence. My common
> sense is extremely keen. I need not examine it scientifically. There is
> too much evidence for it all to be coincidence. It is not normal thinking
> to assume it's coincidence. Sorry, coincidences like that do not happen.
> They do not.

What "verifiable information"? All that the "9/11 'Scholars' " have
presented is raw conjecture, with "experts" who have no expertise in the
appropriate fields and a series of nonsequitors to "build" their case.

All "TRUTH" has is a personal hunch.

Sorry, but all the "Big, Bad Wolf" has to do to blow your house down is
sneeze.

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:8M7Sf.62062$Ug4.14546@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>
>>> The only info I have is the power down in the South Tower:
>>> http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
>>> http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html
>>
>> In other words you can't answer my questions. A "power down" does
>> not
>> indicate anything sinister. Are you trying to tell us "they" did a few
>> week's work in less that 24 hours? Even if "they" could who made all
>> the debris vanish and why didn't anyone notice the prepwork Monday
>> morning?
>
>
> No. They did **some** of the work during that time period. The point made
> is that it is too much of a coincidence for them to have scheduled the
> first WTC "cabling upgrade" right before 9/11. The electricity was off.

You aren't making sense. When was the rest of the prep work
supposedly done? What does having power off have to do with preparing
for demolition? You still haven't answered my question about why no one
noticed the prep work when they entered the building on Monday and no
one noticed the tons of debris from the prep work. As for the
"coincidence" would you rather they shut off power during the work week
when they wanted to do their repairs?
>
>
>
>> Do you not see why your theory makes no sense whatever?
>
>
> I see how it could be questioned, but it certainly makes perfect sense.
> You need to take all the other information into context.

I have and found "all the other information" you have presented to be
false. Taken as a whole you have presented a conspiracy with absolutely
no factual basis.
>
>
>
>>> Also, GWB's brother Marvin, and a cousin were executives in the WTC's
>>> security company
>> And his brother Jeb is governor of Florida and his wife was a
>> librarian and his mother has gray hair and the sun was shining that
>> day and Alaska has ice...etc. So what?
>
>
> AGAIN.... you have to take all the information in context

See above.
>
>>>
>>>>> By your tone / name calling, you sound a bit upset. Perhaps because
>>>>> you think there's something to Jones' claims afterall? I noticed
>>>>> you snipped out one of Jones' main points from my response,
>>>>> regarding NIST not performing analysis after collapse inituation.
>>>> You have a history of name calling yourself.
>>>
>>> Only in direct retaliation.
>> Negative.
>
>
> It that's true, then I've been conversing with pilots too long

And have learned nothing from them.
>
>
>>>> Why would NIST need to
>>>> do an analysis after initiation of collapse when they already proved
>>>> what how it started? It was simply a chain reaction.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>> Perhaps to learn clues to prevent a complete, freefall "fire induced"
>>> collapse from happening again, especially since:
>>>
>>> It never happened before, but on 9/11 it happened three times. An
>>> executive in the WTC Management said in his opinion the Towers could
>>> withstand multiple 707 impacts, and compared it to a pencil
>>> puncturing a screen netting. Firefighters made it up to the impact
>>> area of the South Tower and suggested nothing major.
>> Already addressed.
>
>
> Incorrectly and illogically addressed. Look at ALL the information in
> context

I have and every single point you have presented has been proven false.
>
>>> Also, are you aware that NIST literally "changed" the data in their
>>> computer simulation to get the Towers to collapse? And now they
>>> refuse to show the simulations to leading fire engineers who call for
>>> them.
>> I bet they did change data entries. It's part of what one does in
>> simulations. Once they duplicate what happened they will know what
>> caused it by the data they entered. You are not conversant in this
>> area so I suggest you accept the responses from the experts you keep
>> asking.
>
>
>
> Again... you must take all the information into context

Again, I have.

>
>>>
>>>
>>> From Jones' paper:
>>> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>>>
>> Let me try to explain this again. His paper has been debunked many
>> times. He may be a physicist but he is a theoretical physicist as
>> opposed to a structural engineer who uses applied physics. Jones is a
>> fool and so is anyone who uses his paper as a basis for disbelieving
>> the government's story.
>
>
> You keep saying "his paper has been debunked many times". That is total
> nonsense. You are just fooling yourself. No where has his paper been
> debunked. It was already explained that nitpicking at little irrelavent
> infomation is not debunking. The 17 main points must be debunked,
> scientifically. Your "fool" remark is a predetermination to find the
> alternate theory unrealistic. You are obviously doing everything possible
> to hold onto the government's version no matter how nonsensical it is.
>

But each and every single point HAS been "scientifically debunked"
repeatedly in each and every NG you have attempted to perpetrate your
fraud. You simply don't understand the science involved and have
admitted so on several occassions.

>
>
>
>> You keep asking for expert opinion then blowing off what you hear.
>> By
>> your own admission you don't understand the science and math involved
>> yet you doubt those of us who do. Remember when you tried to tell us
>> jetliners use diesel fuel, a squib is a puff of smoke, the ground is
>> not visible from 34,000 feet etc? You are really coming across as a
>> bit silly in all this.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
> Those are all red herrings and mean nothing. They're used by those trying
> to ignore the real issues. The silly people are those who don't take
> everything in context, ignore evidence, and project their silliness onto
> others

Which is precisely what you are doing. Why not look at Jone's paper
and remove each of the items you call "red herrings" and see what's left?

Tell you what, let's try an experiment. Make some thermite and test
it. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powders. These
powders are readily available on e-bay and elsewhere. Use a container of
your choice, paper cups work fine, and make a 50-50 mix filling the cup.
Now get a 1/2" thick piece of steel plate and mount it horizontally
extending off the end of a bench or table. Do this outside. Place the
cup of thermite on top of the steel plate. Now try to ignite it with a
match, it won't work. Now try a blow torch, it will work. Observe how
long it takes to get going and how long it takes to completely burn. Now
observe the damage to the steel plate and ground under it. This is done
by molten slag from the thermite. You will also notice the thermite did
NOT explode nor did it "cut" the metal. This proves Jones', and your's,
claim thermite is a "cutting explosive" is flat out wrong. Since the
experiment can be, and has been, reproduced it is scientific proof Jones
and you are wrong. This is not a "red herring," it is a fact.

For future reference the difference between a burn and an explosion
is rate of burn. If you poured a line of smokeless gunpowder, as used in
small arms ammunition, one mile long, a similar line of C-4 plastic
explosives and a similar line of gasoline and ignited them all at the
same time at one end the smokeless powder would take several minutes,
depending on the type maybe half an hour, gasoline flame will reach the
other end in a matter of a few minutes and the C-4 will reach the other
end in a fraction of a second. Which one is an explosive? I'll give you
a hint: smokeless powder doesn't explode when fired in small arms
ammunition and gasoline does not explode in internal combustion engines.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:

>
> You are not understanding the points in my comments. He was
> ***supposed*** to be in the North Tower on the morning of 9/11. He wasn't
> because he scheduled a doctors appointment.
>
Then he wasn't expected to be in his office, was he? If you schedule a
doctor's appointment are you supposed to be in two places at once?


>
>>> WTC 7 fire alarm put into test mode 6:47AM on 9/11
>> And? If the building is being blown up, what difference does it make?
>>
>
> Again, you are not understanding the point. The point is that it was put
> in test mode **on the morning of 9/11**. Why? I don't know. It is not
> important.

Then why keep bring it up?

It is obvious that it had some connection. What connection? I
> don't know. It is not important. You need to understand that coincidences
> like this do not happen.

They happen all the time. You just refuse to admit it. I bet GWB
scratched his butt that morning. It's a coincidence, but irrelevant.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:

>
> I had said a while ago that I knew the WTC was professionally demolished
> long before I even heard of Dr Jones. The evidence is so obvious, so
> overwhelming, and so clear. Jones' paper just helped me understand the
> science a bit more. I need not "have faith" in Jones' paper. There is
> nothing in it for me to have faith of. I just looked at the verifiable
> information, and used my common sense. I don't need a physics professor,
> or any other professor to tell me how to examine the evidence. My common
> sense is extremely keen. I need not examine it scientifically.

Then why do you keep asking for "scientific proof" Jones is wrong?
What you are describing is blind faith the facts be damned.

There is
> too much evidence for it all to be coincidence. It is not normal thinking
> to assume it's coincidence. Sorry, coincidences like that do not happen.
> They do not.

You have yet to provide "evidence" for any of this. You have not
provided a single expert in demolitions to say WTC was deliberately
demolished as part of a conspiracy. You have not provided a single
structural expert to say heat weakened steel won't fail. Let's face it,
you have yet to provide a single expert that backs you up.

Let me ask you this, Jones holds the title "doctor" does this mean
you would want him doing open heart surgery on you? The same thing is
true when he makes claims of proof of demolition. He is not an expert in
that field.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

wrote:
> TRUTH wrote:
>> " > wrote in
>> oups.com:
>>
>>> Wake Up! wrote:
>>>> " > wrote in
>>>> oups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Wake Up! wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
>>>>>> framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
>>>>> And impact. Yes, they do, and you've got another structural
>>>>> engineer
>>>>> telling you so.
>>>>
>>>> Who's the other structural engineer?
>>> Me, but you knew that.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Okay, in that case, kindly explain Jones' 17 points.
>
> Asked and answered counselor, let's move on.
>
>> To discredit his
>> claims, all 17 points much be addressed and explained why they are not
>> relavent. Thank you.
>> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>>
>> PS You should consider joining ST911. A structural engineer on their
>> panel would be very helpful
>
> No one there wants to hear from an structural engineer.
>

Or anyone else who is an expert.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Laurence Doering]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:01:42 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
> Laurence Doering > wrote in
> :
>
>>> The Madrid Tower did not completely colllapse. The Twin Towers and
>>> WTC 7 did.
>>
>> The steel-framed portions of the Windsor Tower on and above the levels
>> affected by the fire did completely collapse. Google for pictures of
>> the building after the fire, and notice how the concrete core was all
>> that remained standing of the entire upper half of the building.
>>
>> Google will also tell you that the Windsor Tower was described
>> as having been "destroyed" by the fire, that Madrid officials
>> believed there was a very good chance the entire building would
>> collapse after the fire was out, and that the remains of
>> the tower have since been demolished.

I take it since you didn't respond to this portion of my post,
that you now concede that steel structures can indeed collapse
as the result of fires, as happened several times in September
2001 in New York and again in February 2005 in Madrid.

>>> The fire in the North Tower was **very small**.
>>
>> Says you. If it was "very small", why does all the available video
>> of the north tower during the time between impact and collapse show
>> a massive smoke plume that could only come from a large fire? What
>> about all the video that shows visible fire on multiple floors?
>>
>> More to the point, why did hundreds of people jump to certain death
>> from the north tower if there was only a "very small" fire? Why
>> didn't they stay put and wait to be rescued?
>
> They did not jump. Many were shaken out of the Towers from the
> explosions, and can be horribly viewed in the video 9/11 Eyewitness.

Sufferin' succotash on a pogo stick, TRUTH, is that the best you
can come up with?

There is plenty of video and photographs of people falling from the
WTC towers, and none of it shows any of them being "shaken out"
by "explosions".

People jumped, and the only reason they would have done it was
because they thought certain death on impact was a better choice
than being burned alive in what you claim to think was a "very
small" fire. The people who jumped to their deaths, it seems,
did not agree with you.

>>> If not, why did firefighters say it wasn't much and that all they
>>> needed was a couple of lines?
>>
>> Because you're quoting them out of context. Feel free to provide
>> proof that the FDNY believed there was only a "very small" fire
>> burning in WTC 1.
>
> This is regarding WTC 2, not 1:

That's nice, but you said "the fire in the North Tower was
**very small**."

WTC 1 was the north tower, the one that was hit first and
collapsed second. WTC 2 was the south tower.

Again, feel free to post any proof you may have that the
FDNY thought the fires in the WTC towers were minor, or
that they could be easily fought. I think the fact that
the entire city's fire department mobilized that day, and
that hundreds of firemen were killed at the WTC site, is
pretty strong evidence that the FDNY thought the fires were
anything but "very small".


ljd

[Johnny Bravo]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:00:54 -0600, Dan > wrote:

>TRUTH wrote:
>> Tank Fixer > wrote in
><snip>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you do not intend to discuss Dr Jones lack of training in
>>> structural engineering or materials science.
>
>>>
>>
>> What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a physicist
>> with a PhD.
>
> Forget it, "truth" refuses to understand that being a "physicist with
>a PhD" doesn't make one qualified in the subject at hand. If you read
>Jone's BYU bio he claims no training in any subject other than physics.
>He is not qualified to come to the conclusions "truth" says he has.

The really ironic thing is that "truth" demands that only a structural
engineer with specialized training that Jones never recieved can refute Jones'
claims. Except when an actual structural engineer actually does refute Jones'
claims, then the engineer is delusional.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:55:26 GMT, mrtravel > wrote:

>TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
>
>>>
>>>And -- White Star proclaimed the Titanic to be "unsinkable", too.
>>
>> Okay. Where is the evidence suggesting the titanic did not sink the way
>> people think it did?
>>
>
>It sank because of bad steel.
>Apparently the US government was involved in that conspiracy too.
>I think Dr Jones wrote a paper.

Titanic was unsinkable, White Star Lines said so. They must have used
Thermite cutter-charges to sink it for the insurance money. The lack of
lifeboats for the lower class passengers was deliberate so they would die and
not tell anyone about the big plumes of white smoke. The upper class passengers
had too much to loose if they went public so they just kept quiet due to a gag
order from White Star Lines.

It makes as much sense as anything "truth" has said so far.

>> WTC 7 fire alarm put into test mode 6:47AM on 9/11
>
>And? If the building is being blown up, what difference does it make?

Truth has been told repeatedly that even with no fire alarm system installed
in the building the automatic sprinklers would still have functioned as planned.
Apparently part of the conspiracy was the government's tractor beam technology
guiding falling debris so it would cut the water main in front of WTC-7 so the
sprinkler system had no water pressure.

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote
>
>
> Again, you are not understanding the point. The point is that it was put
> in test mode **on the morning of 9/11**. Why? I don't know. It is not
> important. It is obvious that it had some connection. What connection? I
> don't know. It is not important. You need to understand that coincidences
> like this do not happen.

Why do coicidences like this not happen.
If you are blowing up a building, the fire alarm isn't going to stop
you. Disabling the fire alarm would help if you were burning down a
building, but you claim the fires didn't cause the collapse.

[mrtravel]

Dan wrote:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Tank Fixer > wrote in
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you do not intend to discuss Dr Jones lack of training in
>>> structural engineering or materials science.
>
>
>>>
>>
>> What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a
>> physicist with a PhD.
>
>
> Forget it, "truth" refuses to understand that being a "physicist with
> a PhD" doesn't make one qualified in the subject at hand. If you read
> Jone's BYU bio he claims no training in any subject other than physics.
> He is not qualified to come to the conclusions "truth" says he has.

I think he is just as qualified as TRUTH to make expert judgements on
this issue.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:48:54 GMT, Johnny Bravo >
wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:55:26 GMT, mrtravel > wrote:
>
>>TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
>>
>>>>
>>>>And -- White Star proclaimed the Titanic to be "unsinkable", too.
>>>
>>> Okay. Where is the evidence suggesting the titanic did not sink the way
>>> people think it did?
>>>
>>
>>It sank because of bad steel.
>>Apparently the US government was involved in that conspiracy too.
>>I think Dr Jones wrote a paper.
>
> Titanic was unsinkable, White Star Lines said so. They must have used
>Thermite cutter-charges to sink it for the insurance money.

Nah m8, they used sub kilodyne yield fusion depth charges tamped with
depleted unobtainium mixed with Colmans mustard....
--
Chuck Norris and Mr.T walked into a bar. The bar was instantly
destroyed,as that level of awesome cannot be contained in one building.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:14:52 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> .net:
>
> > In article >,
> > on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:20:47 GMT,
> > Wake Up! attempted to say .....
> >
> >> mrtravel > wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
> >> @newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
> >>
> >> > Wake Up! wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
> >> >> framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
> >> >> you are definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know
> >> >> that steel framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire.
> >> >> Never. Sorry.
> >> >
> >> > You claim it was thermite.
> >> > There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
> >> > But, don't let the facts bother you.
> >> > You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the
> >> > info you post yourself.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's
> >> the ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.
> >
> > #1 Thermite is NOT a cutter explosive.
> >
> >
>
>
> red herring. Whether is is a cutter explosive or not, it means nothing to
> the points in Jones paper

Snort, BS.
It is one of the points in his paper !





--
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 Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:13:33 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> k.net:
>
> > In article >,
> > on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:34:28 GMT,
> > Wake Up! attempted to say .....
> >
> >> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> >> k.net:
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:04:10 GMT,
> >> > Wake Up! attempted to say .....
> >> >
> >> >> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> >> >> k.net:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:25:07 GMT,
> >> >> > Wake Up! attempted to say .....
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "khobar" > wrote in
> >> >> >> news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > "Wake Up!" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >> "khobar" > wrote in
> >> >> >> >> news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > "Keith W" > wrote in
> >> >> >> >> > message ...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> >> >> >> >> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way
> >> >> >> >> >> you are aware that thermite isnt used to demolish
> buildings
> >> >> >> >> >> arent you ?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since
> >> >> >> >> > thermite isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it
> >> >> >> >> > being used. Har har har de har har.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Paul Nixon
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I
> >> >> >> >> guess to a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially
> >> >> >> >> evaporate steel? Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures
> >> >> >> >> that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause
> metal
> >> >> >> >> dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were those three items
> >> >> >> >> present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers aren't
> able
> >> >> >> >> to take everything into context, and instead give silly
> reasons
> >> >> >> >> for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on
> to
> >> >> >> >> your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a
> >> >> >> > nuclear reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal
> at
> >> >> >> > the WTC? Yes. Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like
> >> >> >> > in the videos? Yes. Were these three items present at the WTC?
> >> >> >> > Yes.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Oops...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Paul Nixon
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget
> that
> >> >> >> hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His
> >> >> >> supporters are growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence
> >> >> >> at his Sept 22 seminar, he convinced 60 faculty members that
> there
> >> >> >> should be a new investigation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why all the evidence is in the proofs you keep posting !
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And the investigation those faculty members think should happen ?
> >> >> > Why do I suspect they want to know how Dr Jones came to his
> degree
> >> >> > in structural engineering
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This is what they're calling for:
> >> >> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399
> >> >>
> >> >> Jones' has a PhD in physics, so he should be qualified to determine
> >> >> in the government's version of the collapses defy phsyics.
> >> >
> >> > So he has no background in structural engineering ?
> >> > Nor the mechanics of matertials either I take it.
> >> >
> >> > A degree in physics is just that.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Watch the video of the South Tower collapse below.
> >>
> >
> >
> > So you do not intend to discuss Dr Jones lack of training in
> > structural engineering or materials science.
> >
>
> What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a physicist
> with a PhD.

That is nice that he has a PHD in physics.

That was not my point since he is neither an engineer nor materials scientist.
Two separate and only marginally related fields.

Since he has this PHD in physics is he qualified to say discuss oceanography ?

--
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 Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:37:10 GMT,
mrtravel attempted to say .....

> TRUTH wrote:
>
> > They did not jump. Many were shaken out of the Towers from the
> > explosions, and can be horribly viewed in the video 9/11 Eyewitness.
> >
>
> What if I told you there is video that clearly shows some people jumping?
>

He will ignore you or claim you are lying.

--
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 Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:49:35 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

> mrtravel > wrote in
> . com:
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> Not to mention WTC management were business types not engineers
> >>> and
> >>>thus were not in a position to provide an educated opinion such as
> >>>that.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> One of the people who said it was a WTC design engineer. (I'm pretty
> >> sure)
> >>
> >
> > Maybe he was wrong.
> > The scenario was not having a fully fueled 767 crash into the WTC, was
> > it?
> >
>
>
> If his was the only piece of evidence there was, then I would believe him
> wrong. But with all the overwhelming evidence that exists...

What "overwhelming evidence" is that ?



--
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 Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:47:31 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

> mrtravel > wrote in
> m:
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> Tank Fixer > wrote in
> >> .net:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:20:47 GMT,
> >>> Wake Up! attempted to say .....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>mrtravel > wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
> :
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Wake Up! wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
> >>>>>>framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
> >>>>>>you are definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know
> >>>>>>that steel framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire.
> >>>>>>Never. Sorry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You claim it was thermite.
> >>>>>There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
> >>>>>But, don't let the facts bother you.
> >>>>>You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the
> >>>>>info you post yourself.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's
> >>>>the ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.
> >>>
> >>>#1 Thermite is NOT a cutter explosive.
> >
> >>
> >> red herring. Whether is is a cutter explosive or not, it means
> >> nothing to the points in Jones paper
> >
> > Are all of your false beliefs "red herrings"?
> > Dr Jones is NOT an expert. Why do you have so much faith in his paper?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> I had said a while ago that I knew the WTC was professionally demolished
> long before I even heard of Dr Jones. The evidence is so obvious, so
> overwhelming, and so clear. Jones' paper just helped me understand the
> science a bit more. I need not "have faith" in Jones' paper. There is
> nothing in it for me to have faith of. I just looked at the verifiable
> information, and used my common sense. I don't need a physics professor,
> or any other professor to tell me how to examine the evidence. My common
> sense is extremely keen. I need not examine it scientifically. There is
> too much evidence for it all to be coincidence. It is not normal thinking
> to assume it's coincidence. Sorry, coincidences like that do not happen.
> They do not.

So you are approaching this from a predetermined point of view.
Just the very same thing you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of.

I would say you have the common sense of a house fly, to be charitable.


--
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 Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:48:54 GMT,
Johnny Bravo attempted to say .....

>
> Titanic was unsinkable, White Star Lines said so. They must have used
> Thermite cutter-charges to sink it for the insurance money. The lack of
> lifeboats for the lower class passengers was deliberate so they would die and
> not tell anyone about the big plumes of white smoke. The upper class passengers
> had too much to loose if they went public so they just kept quiet due to a gag
> order from White Star Lines.

Plus it was designed to be able to withstand multiple strikes by snowballs

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

[Johnny Bravo]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:39 GMT, Tank Fixer >
wrote:

>So you are approaching this from a predetermined point of view.
>Just the very same thing you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of.
>
>I would say you have the common sense of a house fly, to be charitable.

Not very charitable to house flies.

[mrtravel]

Johnny Bravo wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:39 GMT, Tank Fixer >
> wrote:
>
>
>>So you are approaching this from a predetermined point of view.
>>Just the very same thing you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of.
>>
>>I would say you have the common sense of a house fly, to be charitable.
>
>
> Not very charitable to house flies.

Doesn't it feel weird when you think they are watching you?

Flies are an interesting topic for r.t.a, since their eyes are wired to
their wings and they are very good fliers.

[Dr. George O. Bizzigotti]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:25 GMT, Tank Fixer
> wrote:

>In article >,
> on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:13:33 GMT,
> TRUTH attempted to say .....

>> What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a physicist
>> with a PhD.

>That is nice that he has a PHD in physics.

>That was not my point since he is neither an engineer nor materials scientist.
>Two separate and only marginally related fields.

Although I have agreed in several posts of my own with Tank Fixer and
other posters who have objected to Truth's argument that because Jones
holds a Ph. D. in physics his hypothesis cannot be questioned, I did
want to address the question below, which is similar to those I've
seen from other posters.

>Since he has this PHD in physics is he qualified to say discuss oceanography ?

My answer would have to be yes. At best, a Ph.D. is a degree that
teaches you how to do scholarly research. There are many Ph.D.'s who
have made important contributions in fields outside the one in which
they were initially educated. As an example using the two fields about
which Tank Fixer asked, D. James Baker holds a Ph. D. in experimental
physics and was Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration during the Clinton Administration.

For my money, the real issue is a bit more nuanced. A Ph.D. in one
field also gives one an intimate knowledge of the questions one should
ask in that field and the tools available to seek the answers. The
real risk for Ph.D.'s as they go out of their initial disciplines is
that they will miss key questions or be ignorant of key tools. Some
Ph.D.'s exercise an appropriate degree of caution as they venture
outside their fields, others don't. A major beef that structural
engineers have with Jones is his reliance on a single equation for
movement due to gravitational acceleration in a vacuum, apparently
ignoring tools that the engineers have developed to analyze the
complexities of failure in a large structure. Much of Jones' argument
boils down to "it fell too fast" without any consideration of "how
fast would it be expected to fall?"

I have stated before that Jones' arguments should be evaluated on
their merits. His credentials do not entitle those arguments to any
special deference, but neither do they disqualify those arguments
because his discipline is less relevant to the issue than some other
disciplines.

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 ***

[khobar]

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:25 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:13:33 GMT,
> > TRUTH attempted to say .....
>
> >> What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a physicist
> >> with a PhD.
>
> >That is nice that he has a PHD in physics.
>
> >That was not my point since he is neither an engineer nor materials
scientist.
> >Two separate and only marginally related fields.
>
> Although I have agreed in several posts of my own with Tank Fixer and
> other posters who have objected to Truth's argument that because Jones
> holds a Ph. D. in physics his hypothesis cannot be questioned, I did
> want to address the question below, which is similar to those I've
> seen from other posters.
>
> >Since he has this PHD in physics is he qualified to say discuss
oceanography ?
>
> My answer would have to be yes. At best, a Ph.D. is a degree that
> teaches you how to do scholarly research. There are many Ph.D.'s who
> have made important contributions in fields outside the one in which
> they were initially educated. As an example using the two fields about
> which Tank Fixer asked, D. James Baker holds a Ph. D. in experimental
> physics and was Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
> Administration during the Clinton Administration.

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, George. As you said, *at best* a
Ph.D. is a degree that teaches you *how* to do scholarly research - it does
not demonstrates that you actually havedone scholarly research. So unless
Jones has actually done the research on oceanography he is no more qualified
discuss it than any non-Ph.D.

As I've seen in the past there are those who have Ph.D's who seem to believe
their word should be taken at face value merely on the strength of them
having a Ph.D. This seems to be what Prof. Jones is doing, or, at the very
least, what his "supporters" are trying to do for him.

Others, such as yourself, at least offer explanation and supporting text
whether your conclusion is ultimately right or wrong. I dare say your
version of Prof. Jones's paper would be very different even if your ultimate
conclusion was the same.

>
> For my money, the real issue is a bit more nuanced. A Ph.D. in one
> field also gives one an intimate knowledge of the questions one should
> ask in that field and the tools available to seek the answers. The
> real risk for Ph.D.'s as they go out of their initial disciplines is
> that they will miss key questions or be ignorant of key tools. Some
> Ph.D.'s exercise an appropriate degree of caution as they venture
> outside their fields, others don't. A major beef that structural
> engineers have with Jones is his reliance on a single equation for
> movement due to gravitational acceleration in a vacuum, apparently
> ignoring tools that the engineers have developed to analyze the
> complexities of failure in a large structure. Much of Jones' argument
> boils down to "it fell too fast" without any consideration of "how
> fast would it be expected to fall?"

Prof. Jones has not demonstrated knowledge even within his discipline - for
a Physics Ph.D to content himself arguing "it fell too fast" is more than
sufficient proof that something is amiss.

> I have stated before that Jones' arguments should be evaluated on
> their merits. His credentials do not entitle those arguments to any
> special deference, but neither do they disqualify those arguments
> because his discipline is less relevant to the issue than some other
> disciplines.

In my opinion, his credentials most certainly do disqualify those arguments
if all he offers as qualification are his credentials and nothing more.

Unfortunately, he's really not doing anything different than many other
"scientists", as I discovered a long time ago. Had he chosen a different
argument, one more in vogue and with stronger political backing, he'd
certainly have more than a few dozen supporters around the world. At the
very least, had he offered some evidence for his current argument,
distasteful as it is, he might be seen as possibly contributing to our
understanding of what happened. As it is, he's just another bozo wasting a
Ph.D.

Paul Nixon

[Johnny Bravo]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:42:47 GMT, mrtravel > wrote:

>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:39 GMT, Tank Fixer >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So you are approaching this from a predetermined point of view.
>>>Just the very same thing you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of.
>>>
>>>I would say you have the common sense of a house fly, to be charitable.
>>
>>
>> Not very charitable to house flies.
>
>Doesn't it feel weird when you think they are watching you?
>
>Flies are an interesting topic for r.t.a, since their eyes are wired to
>their wings and they are very good fliers.

I'm posting from r.a.m where they haven't come up with a really good miltiary
use for flies yet. Maybe if they ever create a small enough anti-matter
warhead. :)

[Dan]

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:42:47 GMT, mrtravel > wrote:
>
>> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:39 GMT, Tank Fixer >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So you are approaching this from a predetermined point of view.
>>>> Just the very same thing you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of.
>>>>
>>>> I would say you have the common sense of a house fly, to be charitable.
>>>
>>> Not very charitable to house flies.
>> Doesn't it feel weird when you think they are watching you?
>>
>> Flies are an interesting topic for r.t.a, since their eyes are wired to
>> their wings and they are very good fliers.
>
> I'm posting from r.a.m where they haven't come up with a really good miltiary
> use for flies yet. Maybe if they ever create a small enough anti-matter
> warhead. :)

Flies can be used to bug enemy facilities.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[lynn]

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:08:30 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:

> WTC burned for more than 7 hours while being fed about 6,000 gallons of
> diesel.

Tell me about the 6,000 gallons of diesel! Was it in a storage tank?
Was it in the airplane?

Were was the diesel fuel?

[Skylune]

by Tank Fixer > Mar 16, 2006 at 04:34 AM


This brings to mind a line from a famous Katherine Hepburn movie,

" The Loons, the Loons......"

<<

What is the title of the movie? It sounds good.

[Laurence Doering]

On 17 Mar 2006 11:28:46 -0800, lynn > wrote:
>
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:08:30 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:
>
>> WTC burned for more than 7 hours while being fed about 6,000 gallons of
>> diesel.
>
> Tell me about the 6,000 gallons of diesel! Was it in a storage tank?
> Was it in the airplane?

> Were was the diesel fuel?

In storage tanks in WTC 7, there to power generators for the New
York City Office of Emergency Management command center which was
located on the 23rd floor of the building. At least one source
says there were two tanks, each with a capacity of 11,690 gallons,
so there would have been quite a bit more than 6,000 gallons of
diesel fuel in the building unless the tanks were only between
a quarter and a third full.


ljd

[mrtravel]

lynn wrote:

> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:08:30 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:
>
>
>> WTC burned for more than 7 hours while being fed about 6,000 gallons of
>>diesel.
>
>
> Tell me about the 6,000 gallons of diesel! Was it in a storage tank?
> Was it in the airplane?
>
> Were was the diesel fuel?
>

It was in a storage tank at WTC7

How many jets do you know that use diesel to fly?

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:16:33 -0500,
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti attempted to say .....

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:25 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:13:33 GMT,
> > TRUTH attempted to say .....
>
> >> What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a physicist
> >> with a PhD.
>
> >That is nice that he has a PHD in physics.
>
> >That was not my point since he is neither an engineer nor materials scientist.
> >Two separate and only marginally related fields.
>
> Although I have agreed in several posts of my own with Tank Fixer and
> other posters who have objected to Truth's argument that because Jones
> holds a Ph. D. in physics his hypothesis cannot be questioned, I did
> want to address the question below, which is similar to those I've
> seen from other posters.
>
> >Since he has this PHD in physics is he qualified to say discuss oceanography ?
>
> My answer would have to be yes. At best, a Ph.D. is a degree that
> teaches you how to do scholarly research. There are many Ph.D.'s who
> have made important contributions in fields outside the one in which
> they were initially educated. As an example using the two fields about
> which Tank Fixer asked, D. James Baker holds a Ph. D. in experimental
> physics and was Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
> Administration during the Clinton Administration.
>
> For my money, the real issue is a bit more nuanced. A Ph.D. in one
> field also gives one an intimate knowledge of the questions one should
> ask in that field and the tools available to seek the answers. The
> real risk for Ph.D.'s as they go out of their initial disciplines is
> that they will miss key questions or be ignorant of key tools. Some
> Ph.D.'s exercise an appropriate degree of caution as they venture
> outside their fields, others don't. A major beef that structural
> engineers have with Jones is his reliance on a single equation for
> movement due to gravitational acceleration in a vacuum, apparently
> ignoring tools that the engineers have developed to analyze the
> complexities of failure in a large structure. Much of Jones' argument
> boils down to "it fell too fast" without any consideration of "how
> fast would it be expected to fall?"
>
> I have stated before that Jones' arguments should be evaluated on
> their merits. His credentials do not entitle those arguments to any
> special deference, but neither do they disqualify those arguments
> because his discipline is less relevant to the issue than some other
> disciplines.

Good point, I should frame it more that Dr Jone's evaluation of the evidence he
presents is lacking.





--
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, 17 Mar 2006 07:02:18 GMT,
Johnny Bravo attempted to say .....

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:39 GMT, Tank Fixer >
> wrote:
>
> >So you are approaching this from a predetermined point of view.
> >Just the very same thing you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of.
> >
> >I would say you have the common sense of a house fly, to be charitable.
>
> Not very charitable to house flies.


No ****..

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

[Johnny Bravo]

On 17 Mar 2006 20:52:09 GMT, Laurence Doering > wrote:

>On 17 Mar 2006 11:28:46 -0800, lynn > wrote:
>>
>> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:08:30 GMT, "Wake Up!" > wrote:
>>
>>> WTC burned for more than 7 hours while being fed about 6,000 gallons of
>>> diesel.
>>
>> Tell me about the 6,000 gallons of diesel! Was it in a storage tank?
>> Was it in the airplane?
>
>> Were was the diesel fuel?
>
>In storage tanks in WTC 7, there to power generators for the New
>York City Office of Emergency Management command center which was
>located on the 23rd floor of the building. At least one source
>says there were two tanks, each with a capacity of 11,690 gallons,
>so there would have been quite a bit more than 6,000 gallons of
>diesel fuel in the building unless the tanks were only between
>a quarter and a third full.

In total there were 3 tanks, 1 for the OEM, 2 others for the Saloman, Smith
Barney generators. Given the location of the fire, the most likely souce would
have been the 6,000 gallon tank for the OEM office.

[Dr. George O. Bizzigotti]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:06:21 -0700, "khobar" >
wrote:

>"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:25 GMT, Tank Fixer
>> > wrote:

[regarding Prof. Jones' qualifications as a structural engineer]

>> >Since he has this PHD in physics is he qualified to say discuss
>oceanography ?

>> My answer would have to be yes. At best, a Ph.D. is a degree that
>> teaches you how to do scholarly research. There are many Ph.D.'s who
>> have made important contributions in fields outside the one in which
>> they were initially educated. As an example using the two fields about
>> which Tank Fixer asked, D. James Baker holds a Ph. D. in experimental
>> physics and was Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
>> Administration during the Clinton Administration.

>I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, George. As you said, *at best* a
>Ph.D. is a degree that teaches you *how* to do scholarly research - it does
>not demonstrates that you actually havedone scholarly research. So unless
>Jones has actually done the research on oceanography he is no more qualified
>discuss it than any non-Ph.D.

I don't think we disagree; my point here was simply that a Ph.D. in
the relevant subject is not a requirement to join a scientific
discussion, although it certainly helps. I didn't state this
explicitly, but I also based my comment on the fuzziness of boundaries
between scientific disciplines. There are some Ph.D.'s in physics that
learn a great deal about engineering structures (those that design
some of the huge detectors, for example) whereas others have no
exposure at all. Although each science has a "core" component, many
lay people don't realize that there are few if any bright line
boundaries anymore. I have colleagues who do "physical chemistry" in
Chemistry departments and Jones has colleagues who do "chemical
physics" in Physics departments, and most of them could do the exact
same research in either setting.

The "how" aspect of a Ph.D. means the holder has the capability to
bootstrap into another field. Your point is a good one; such
bootstrapping typically requires a few years of intense work. There's
no guarantee that a given individual has made that investment before
he or she starts publishing in a new field. Peer review (which appears
to have been weak in the case of Jones' paper) tends to keep people
from publishing in new areas without doing such work, but there's no
"Science Police" to check (which I think is a good thing; the
contributions of many scientists doing cross-diciplinary work so
valuable as to vastly outweigh the occasional dilettante).

>As I've seen in the past there are those who have Ph.D's who seem to believe
>their word should be taken at face value merely on the strength of them
>having a Ph.D. This seems to be what Prof. Jones is doing, or, at the very
>least, what his "supporters" are trying to do for him.

My observation is that it is mostly Jones' fellow travelers making
the ex cathedra argument; if Jones himself is doing so he's certainly
being more subtle than TRUTH.

[snip]

>> I have stated before that Jones' arguments should be evaluated on
>> their merits. His credentials do not entitle those arguments to any
>> special deference, but neither do they disqualify those arguments
>> because his discipline is less relevant to the issue than some other
>> disciplines.

>In my opinion, his credentials most certainly do disqualify those arguments
>if all he offers as qualification are his credentials and nothing more.

Here again, I think we agree. You are evaluating Jones argument and
finding it lacking, and so you reject his hypothesis. That he has a
Ph.D. in physics is irrelevant, because you would make the same
evaluation if the argument were advanced by someone else with no Ph.D.
in physics. I would presume that if Jones had an airtight argument for
his hypothesis you would accept it because it was a better argument,
not because of his Ph.D. of his field. That's what I meant by my
assertion; evaluate the argument, not the credentials.

I would add as a side note that credentials can be a useful
consideration in how much caution is appropriate before making a
counterargument. If I were to argue with Jones about physics, which is
his field but not mine, I would make very certain that I studied up on
the physics before I criticized Jones. In the area of the WTC
collapse, neither Jones nor I are structural engineers, and it's
apparent even to a non-engineer that Jones has an overly simplified
view of structures, so I don't feel much need to study up on
structural engineering to point that out.

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 ***

[[email protected]]

Dr. George O. Bizzigotti wrote:
[snip]
> A major beef that structural
> engineers have with Jones is his reliance on a single equation for
> movement due to gravitational acceleration in a vacuum, apparently
> ignoring tools that the engineers have developed to analyze the
> complexities of failure in a large structure. Much of Jones' argument
> boils down to "it fell too fast" without any consideration of "how
> fast would it be expected to fall?"

Exactly. My original critique of that piece took no issue with
Dr. Jones' credentials. I've personally made calculations based upon
several assumptions. All of them lead to similar conclusions, which
is that regardless of the underlying assumptions, you'd never be
able to tell the difference between a building that collapsed
intentionally
from one which collapsed "accidentally".

It is only when the good doctors credentials are floated as a
criticism of my analysis that I point out that his don't actually match
mine, and in fact his analysis suggests some lack of any
applicable expertise.

[khobar]

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:06:21 -0700, "khobar" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:25 GMT, Tank Fixer
> >> > wrote:
>
> [regarding Prof. Jones' qualifications as a structural engineer]
>
[snip]

> I don't think we disagree; my point here was simply that a Ph.D. in
> the relevant subject is not a requirement to join a scientific
> discussion, although it certainly helps. I didn't state this

Agreed.

[snip]

> My observation is that it is mostly Jones' fellow travelers making
> the ex cathedra argument; if Jones himself is doing so he's certainly
> being more subtle than TRUTH.

I guess I'd have to look deeper in Prof. Jones "work" on the subject, though
I'm content to go with your evaluation.

>
> [snip]
>
> >> I have stated before that Jones' arguments should be evaluated on
> >> their merits. His credentials do not entitle those arguments to any
> >> special deference, but neither do they disqualify those arguments
> >> because his discipline is less relevant to the issue than some other
> >> disciplines.
>
> >In my opinion, his credentials most certainly do disqualify those
arguments
> >if all he offers as qualification are his credentials and nothing more.
>
> Here again, I think we agree. You are evaluating Jones argument and
> finding it lacking, and so you reject his hypothesis. That he has a
> Ph.D. in physics is irrelevant, because you would make the same
> evaluation if the argument were advanced by someone else with no Ph.D.
> in physics. I would presume that if Jones had an airtight argument for
> his hypothesis you would accept it because it was a better argument,
> not because of his Ph.D. of his field. That's what I meant by my
> assertion; evaluate the argument, not the credentials.

Yes indeed, but one question remains: why would someone with as much
education and capability as Prof. Jones propose such a hypothesis? With his
background it makes no sense that he would fail to do even the most basic
checks that would reveal just how "out there" his hypothesis is. Could it be
some wild experiment he's conducting to see just who and how many would fall
into line with his hypothesis, or does he truly believe he's right?

>
> I would add as a side note that credentials can be a useful
> consideration in how much caution is appropriate before making a
> counterargument. If I were to argue with Jones about physics, which is
> his field but not mine, I would make very certain that I studied up on
> the physics before I criticized Jones. In the area of the WTC
> collapse, neither Jones nor I are structural engineers, and it's
> apparent even to a non-engineer that Jones has an overly simplified
> view of structures, so I don't feel much need to study up on
> structural engineering to point that out.

All good points, George. Thanks for the additional comments.

Paul Nixon

[khobar]

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" > wrote in message
...

I found this strangely relevant to the discussion:

LONDON, England (AP) -- Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke says he turned down
the chance to discuss climate change with Tony Blair because the British
prime minister has "no environmental credentials."
The charity Friends of the Earth, for which the singer is an ambassador,
asked him to meet Blair.

But Yorke said Blair had no record of championing the environment and added
that dealing with the governing Labour Party's "spin doctors" made him feel
ill.

"I got so stressed out and so freaked out about it. Initially when it came
up I tried to be pragmatic," Yorke told New Music Express magazine in an
issue out Tuesday. "But Blair has no environmental credentials as far as I'm
concerned."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/21/people.thomyorke.ap/index.html

Sound vaguely familiar?

Paul Nixon

[Dr. George O. Bizzigotti]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:46:04 -0700, "khobar" >
wrote:

>"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" > wrote in message
...

>> My observation is that it is mostly Jones' fellow travelers making
>> the ex cathedra argument; if Jones himself is doing so he's certainly
>> being more subtle than TRUTH.

>I guess I'd have to look deeper in Prof. Jones "work" on the subject, though
>I'm content to go with your evaluation.

My assertion is based on Jones' public statements that he's merely
offering a hypothesis and advocating further investigation. Jones
hasn't made any statements along the lines of "I'm a full professor of
physics at a major university, what other evidence do you need?"

Here is one of the more amusing things about TRUTH's argument. If one
really want to argue based on credentials, a full professorship at a
major university is a much more exclusive credential than a Ph.D. in
physics. The ultimate credential is a named chair, e.g., the "Fred and
Ethyl Mertz Chair in Physics," but Jones isn't quite into that
rarified club. (Originally I was just being cheeky, but then I got to
thinking, if Fred and Ethyl held onto that apartment building they
owned in that nice neighborhood in Manhattan, they _would_ be wealthy
enough to endow a chair!)

[snip]

>Yes indeed, but one question remains: why would someone with as much
>education and capability as Prof. Jones propose such a hypothesis? With his
>background it makes no sense that he would fail to do even the most basic
>checks that would reveal just how "out there" his hypothesis is. Could it be
>some wild experiment he's conducting to see just who and how many would fall
>into line with his hypothesis, or does he truly believe he's right?

I have no earthly idea, except to note that Jones isn't the first
academic scientist to propose "out there" hypotheses in fields outside
his original discipline. Sir Fred Hoyle's panspermia hypothesis
springs to mind as one example.

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 ***

[Laurence Doering]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:13:42 -0500, Dr George O Bizzigotti > wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:46:04 -0700, "khobar" >
> wrote:
>
>>Yes indeed, but one question remains: why would someone with as much
>>education and capability as Prof. Jones propose such a hypothesis? With his
>>background it makes no sense that he would fail to do even the most basic
>>checks that would reveal just how "out there" his hypothesis is. Could it be
>>some wild experiment he's conducting to see just who and how many would fall
>>into line with his hypothesis, or does he truly believe he's right?
>
> I have no earthly idea, except to note that Jones isn't the first
> academic scientist to propose "out there" hypotheses in fields outside
> his original discipline. Sir Fred Hoyle's panspermia hypothesis
> springs to mind as one example.

Another is A.K. Dewdney, the longtime contributor to "Scientific
American". According to his personal web page [1], his areas
of expertise are computer science and biology. He has also
contributed to the body of 9/11 conspiracy literature with
something called "Project Achilles" [2], an experiment he
conducted to try to prove that it is either difficult or
nearly impossible to use a cell phone from an airborne
aircraft, and thereby to cast doubt on the official account
of 9/11 that says passengers on the hijacked aircraft made
phone calls.

Dewdney's conclusion, based on experiments with several cell
phones from the cockpit of a light aircraft flying in the
vicinity of London, Ontario, is that it is difficult to
successfully complete a call.

He does not address the possibility that cell phone reception
might be significantly better in the New York area than near
a small city in southwestern Ontario. He also ignores the fact
that many of the passengers' phone calls were made using the
Airfone systems installed on the airliners.


ljd

[1] http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~akd/PERSONAL/Personal.html
[2] http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm

[John Mazor]

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:46:04 -0700, "khobar" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> My observation is that it is mostly Jones' fellow travelers making
>>> the ex cathedra argument; if Jones himself is doing so he's certainly
>>> being more subtle than TRUTH.
>
>>I guess I'd have to look deeper in Prof. Jones "work" on the subject,
>>though
>>I'm content to go with your evaluation.
>
> My assertion is based on Jones' public statements that he's merely
> offering a hypothesis and advocating further investigation. Jones
> hasn't made any statements along the lines of "I'm a full professor of
> physics at a major university, what other evidence do you need?"

George,

Do you remember Mike Rivero, one of the prime loons at the height of the
TWA800 wars here in ADA? He would do things like show a series of pictures
of a styrofoam glider in flight to "prove" something or other about the
plane's flightpath.

When critics started drilling on him, his response was "I was a NASA
scientist!" Well, that sounded pretty authoritative. But UseNet provided a
fair amount of information even back then, so I tracked down some of his
posts in other groups and his website where he listed himself as a "former
computer graphics artist for NASA" with the additional claim that he was
working on special effects for the then upcoming movie "Stargate."

NASA scientist, indeed. He never repeated that claim after I called him on
it.

There were some other strange things about him, too, like having more than
100 e-mail addresses located in or near where he lived (Seattle). This was
back in 1997 when it was unusual for anyone to have more than one or two
accounts traceable to them. But that's another story.

I agree with your observations about credentials and authority, but will
throw in the comment that some scientists, even biologists at universities,
believe in Intelligent Design, so go figure.

As to looking at the merits of an assertion and not the character of the
poster, that's certainly the ideal approach. However, if you don't know
enough about the field in question to make sound critical judgments about
the merits, the tendency is to look to some other information, such as the
trustworthiness of the poster. People with a priori positions tend to see
the poster as credible or dubious depending on whether they agree or
disagree. That's hardly dispositive on the merits, but most would feel
(rightly or wrongly) that it's better than nothing.

-- John Mazor
"The search for wisdom is asymptotic."

"Except for Internet newsgroups, where it is divergent..."
-- R J Carpenter

[mrtravel]

John Mazor wrote:
>
> There were some other strange things about him, too, like having more than
> 100 e-mail addresses located in or near where he lived (Seattle). This was
> back in 1997 when it was unusual for anyone to have more than one or two
> accounts traceable to them. But that's another story.

Who is weirder, the person with multiple e-mail addresses, or the person
counting them?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"John Mazor" > wrote:

> Do you remember Mike Rivero, one of the prime loons at the height of the
> TWA800 wars here in ADA? He would do things like show a series of pictures
> of a styrofoam glider in flight to "prove" something or other about the
> plane's flightpath.
>
> When critics started drilling on him, his response was "I was a NASA
> scientist!"

Lots of people do research for the North American Silliness Association.

[John Mazor]

"mrtravel" > wrote in message
. net...
> John Mazor wrote:
>>
>> There were some other strange things about him, too, like having more
>> than 100 e-mail addresses located in or near where he lived (Seattle).
>> This was back in 1997 when it was unusual for anyone to have more than
>> one or two accounts traceable to them. But that's another story.
>
> Who is weirder, the person with multiple e-mail addresses, or the person
> counting them?

Who is weirder, the person with two noses or the person who counts them?

[Stan de SD]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Laurence Doering > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:15:27 -0500, Scott M. Kozel >
> > wrote:
> > > "Wake UP!" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> > >> http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> > >
> > > That most likely is melting aluminum. It has been said to be likely
> > > that aircraft wreckage piled up in that corner of the South Tower.
> >
> > You don't even need aircraft wreckage for aluminum to have been
> > the source of the sparks and apparently molten material. The
> > external metal sheathing on the World Trade Center towers was
> > an aluminum alloy [1].
> >
> > Aluminum's melting point is around 1,200 degrees F, a temperature
> > that's easily reached in building fires.
> >
> > [1]
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=104
>
> And, as a side note, steel weakens dramatically in fires nowhere close
> to its melting point. My VW Bug caught fire a few weeks back, and the
> steel carburetor spring went "unspringy." This was for a five minute
> fire, with small amounts of gasoline and rubber as the fuels.
>
> There is also the consideration of metals beside steel and aluminum in
> the fires - magnesium, for example. There was a good bit in the planes
> that hit the Towers, and it melts and catches fire quite easily at a
> mere 600 degrees C.

Watch it with the facts there - you will **** off all the conspiracy kooks
if you keep it up. :O|

[Stan de SD]

"Dan" > wrote in message
news:32zQf.60431$Ug4.48057@dukeread12...
> Keith W wrote:
> > "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> >> http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> >>
> >
> > I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
> > aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
>
> I told him that a few weeks ago.

Before or after the kook in question changed his handle yet again? :O|

[Stan de SD]

"Wake Up!" > wrote in message
...
> "khobar" > wrote in news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
>
> > "Keith W" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> >> >
> >>
> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
> >> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
> >
> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
> > isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har har
> > har de har har.
> >
> > Paul Nixon
> >
> >
>
>
>
> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
> reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
> Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?

So could a big airplane loaded with fuel hitting it at 250 knots.

What part of "airplane crashes into building" do you NOT understand, retard?

[harry k]

Wake Up! wrote:
> "khobar" > wrote in news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:
>
> > "Keith W" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Wake UP!" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
> >> > http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm
> >> >
> >>
> >> I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
> >> aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?
> >
> > Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
> > isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har har
> > har de har har.
> >
> > Paul Nixon
> >
> >
>
>
>
> As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
> reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
> Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
> Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were
> those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
> aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
> reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
> your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

Care to take a shot at explaining the problem with your "theory" that I
exposed in the hread "it bugs me"? Seems all you kooks just ignore
that glaring problem.

Harry K