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

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds of
people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed on Google
Video, or downloaded to your computer.


The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:

....and the rest of the faculty at his university and in his department
say:

"Professor Jones¹s department and college administrators are not
convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to
relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer
review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of
Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor
Jones."

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds of
people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed on Google
Video, or downloaded to your computer.


The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:

...and the rest of the faculty at his university and in his department
say:

"Professor Jones¹s department and college administrators are not
convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to
relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer
review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of
Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor
Jones."


Next he will be taking on stem cells with renowned South Korean
microbiologist.....

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

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in
:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to
hundreds of people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the
government's version of events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar
can be viewed on Google Video, or downloaded to your computer.


The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:

...and the rest of the faculty at his university and in his
department say:

"Professor Jones¹s department and college administrators are not
convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to
relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer
review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of
Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor
Jones."


Next he will be taking on stem cells with renowned South Korean
microbiologist.....

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






With your comment above, you are obiviously associating 9/11 Truth with
silly conspiracy theories. Doing this is a predetermination of where
you're beliefs will be. You cannot argue with science. And if you dispute
it, you obviously didn't look into it


You're right I can't argue with GOOD science, show me some good REAL science
that is falsifiable and you're on. I HAVE looked into the 9/11 conspiracys
and they are all bull****.

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

TRUTH wrote:
FACT: Never before in world history has a steel framed building
completely collapsed from fire. Not before 9/11, not after 9/11.
Never!

And never before or since have jets crashed into steel frame buildings.

FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!

When the buildings next to it collapsed, all the kinetic energy of the
debris radiated outward on impacting the ground. It got hit by a
"shaped" explosion that tore into its base. No mystery except to those
who get their physics second hand.

FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall speed,
into their own footprints.

Steel frame buildings have collapsed in strong earthquakes in precisely
the same manner. Scroll down to "Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame
Office Building" in this set of slides:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/...3_slides.shtml

FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out of
all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.

Puffs of smoke may be fact - "sign of controlled demolition" is
speculation. So your statement is not a fact. If puffs of smoke had not
come out of the buildings immediately prior to collapse, then THAT would
have been peculiar!

FACT: Explosives expert Van Romero said just days after 9/11 that he
could tell all three buildings collapsed from controlled demolition
just by watching the video footage

That's an opinion. Sure, its a fact he has an opinion, but so what?

FACT: Romero recanted just a few days later without giving any
scientific explanation as to why. He was then promoted.

FACT: Now you have to do your own thinking.

FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on the
entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just happened
to include terrorist attack insurance

Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that needed
to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know how hard it
is to hide an undertaking like that!?

FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's insurance
company told the Discovery Channel that the Towers' massive vertical
columns all failed simultaneously, and mimicked controlled demolition

Since a steel frame building collapsed in just the same manner in a
Mexican earthquake, we now know that simultaneous collapse does not need
human action.

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:
FACT: Never before in world history has a steel framed building
completely collapsed from fire. Not before 9/11, not after 9/11.
Never!



WTC 7 was NOT hit by an airplane


And never before or since have jets crashed into steel frame
buildings.

FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!

When the buildings next to it collapsed, all the kinetic energy of the
debris radiated outward on impacting the ground. It got hit by a
"shaped" explosion that tore into its base. No mystery except to those
who get their physics second hand.



totally illogical. It never happened before.




FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall
speed, into their own footprints.

Steel frame buildings have collapsed in strong earthquakes in
precisely the same manner. Scroll down to "Totally Collapsed 21-Story
Steel Frame Office Building" in this set of slides:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/...3_slides.shtml


None of those building's collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall
speed, into their own footprints. And none of those Mexico City buildings
are steel framed.



FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out of
all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.

Puffs of smoke may be fact - "sign of controlled demolition" is
speculation. So your statement is not a fact. If puffs of smoke had
not come out of the buildings immediately prior to collapse, then THAT
would have been peculiar!


Watch the clips

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


See the squibs he

http://st12.startlogic.com/
~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm



FACT: Explosives expert Van Romero said just days after 9/11 that he
could tell all three buildings collapsed from controlled demolition
just by watching the video footage

That's an opinion. Sure, its a fact he has an opinion, but so what?


It's leads to the explanation of controlled demolitions



FACT: Romero recanted just a few days later without giving any
scientific explanation as to why. He was then promoted.

Now you have to do your own thinking.


Yes I do. Perhaps he didn't want to get an anthrax letter like the two
senators who opposed the Patriot Act did.




FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on the
entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just happened
to include terrorist attack insurance

Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?


Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend before
9/11. Also, Bush's brother Marvin was one of the directors in charge of
WTC security.



FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's insurance
company told the Discovery Channel that the Towers' massive vertical
columns all failed simultaneously, and mimicked controlled demolition

Since a steel frame building collapsed in just the same manner in a
Mexican earthquake, we now know that simultaneous collapse does not
need human action.


This is not true

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

(snipped)

With your comment above, you are obiviously associating 9/11 Truth with
silly conspiracy theories. Doing this is a predetermination of where
you're beliefs will be. You cannot argue with science. And if you dispute
it, you obviously didn't look into it


*WE* are not arguing with science! It is "TRUTH" who is and is losing --
badly!

1) "TRUTH" posits a crackpot professor's idea and claims that it has
been peer reviewed. It has -- but the good professor's peers reject the
story.

2) "TRUTH" posts in aviation newsgroups seeking validation for his (or
some other crackpot's) contention that the hijackers couldn't have flown
the 757s into the buildings and gets 100% response that they could have
done it.

3) "TRUTH" posits that no plane struck the Pentagon -- Purdue University
shows the complete engineering analysis of what happened when the lane
hit the Pentagon.

It is time for "TRUTH", "EagleEye", "Emmanuel Goldstein" and all the
rest of their ilk to go away and hide in their caves in Afghanistan,
with their buddies bin Laden and Zawahiri and await the next B-1 full of
deep penetrators which they all richly deserve.

Orval Fairbairn wrote in
news
In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

(snipped)

With your comment above, you are obiviously associating 9/11 Truth
with silly conspiracy theories. Doing this is a predetermination of
where you're beliefs will be. You cannot argue with science. And if
you dispute it, you obviously didn't look into it


*WE* are not arguing with science! It is "TRUTH" who is and is losing
-- badly!

1) "TRUTH" posits a crackpot professor's idea and claims that it has
been peer reviewed. It has -- but the good professor's peers reject
the story.

2) "TRUTH" posts in aviation newsgroups seeking validation for his (or
some other crackpot's) contention that the hijackers couldn't have
flown the 757s into the buildings and gets 100% response that they
could have done it.

3) "TRUTH" posits that no plane struck the Pentagon -- Purdue
University shows the complete engineering analysis of what happened
when the lane hit the Pentagon.

It is time for "TRUTH", "EagleEye", "Emmanuel Goldstein" and all the
rest of their ilk to go away and hide in their caves in Afghanistan,
with their buddies bin Laden and Zawahiri and await the next B-1 full
of deep penetrators which they all richly deserve.




You are proving yourself to be the idiot. You have not explained ANY of
the scientific evidence. Scienctific laws CANNOT be changed. But since
you think they can be, perhaps you believe in Martians too?

TRUTH wrote:
FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!

When the buildings next to it collapsed, all the kinetic energy of
the debris radiated outward on impacting the ground. It got hit by a
"shaped" explosion that tore into its base. No mystery except to
those who get their physics second hand.

totally illogical. It never happened before.

You are unqualified to make that determination. As I said before, I have a
physics degree. You don't. Contact the University of Minnesota and ask them
if James Logajan holds a degree in physics if you don't believe me.

I'm using my real name and have nothing to hide. What is your real name,
and where did you get your education? If you insist on arguing from
authority, you need to present your credentials.

FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall
speed, into their own footprints.

Steel frame buildings have collapsed in strong earthquakes in
precisely the same manner. Scroll down to "Totally Collapsed 21-Story
Steel Frame Office Building" in this set of slides:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/...3_slides.shtml


None of those building's collapsed almost symmetrically, near free
fall speed, into their own footprints. And none of those Mexico City
buildings are steel framed.

Which part of "Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building" do
you not understand? Why do you outright lie when presented with facts like
these? The photo shows the remains of a steel framed building that has
clearly collapsed into its own footprint.

FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out
of all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.

Puffs of smoke may be fact - "sign of controlled demolition" is
speculation. So your statement is not a fact. If puffs of smoke had
not come out of the buildings immediately prior to collapse, then
THAT would have been peculiar!


Watch the clips

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


See the squibs he

http://st12.startlogic.com/
~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

1) Explosions would be set to occur before or at the collapse - not after.
2) If the lower floors collapsed first, then the compressed air must escape
somehow - windows would be expected to be blown out as the building
collapses.
3) If there was a conspiracy to blow up the building, it would have been
easier to blow one side of the building - only an incompetent conspirator
would go to the trouble of planting explosives in the upper floors _and_
arrange a symmetrical collapse. Needless hard work.


FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on
the entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
happened to include terrorist attack insurance

Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?


Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
before 9/11. Also, Bush's brother Marvin was one of the directors in
charge of WTC security.

Um, doesn't lack of power make drilling harder? And just how does one
person manage such a vast security breach? This is taking place in the
center of an area that has one of the highest population densities on the
planet. Don't you think that someone might have noticed something? How many
people do you think live and work near there anyway???

FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's
insurance company told the Discovery Channel that the Towers'
massive vertical columns all failed simultaneously, and mimicked
controlled demolition

Since a steel frame building collapsed in just the same manner in a
Mexican earthquake, we now know that simultaneous collapse does not
need human action.


This is not true

Explain why not.

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Orval Fairbairn wrote in
news
In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

(snipped)

With your comment above, you are obiviously associating 9/11 Truth
with silly conspiracy theories. Doing this is a predetermination of
where you're beliefs will be. You cannot argue with science. And if
you dispute it, you obviously didn't look into it


*WE* are not arguing with science! It is "TRUTH" who is and is losing
-- badly!

1) "TRUTH" posits a crackpot professor's idea and claims that it has
been peer reviewed. It has -- but the good professor's peers reject
the story.

2) "TRUTH" posts in aviation newsgroups seeking validation for his (or
some other crackpot's) contention that the hijackers couldn't have
flown the 757s into the buildings and gets 100% response that they
could have done it.

3) "TRUTH" posits that no plane struck the Pentagon -- Purdue
University shows the complete engineering analysis of what happened
when the lane hit the Pentagon.

It is time for "TRUTH", "EagleEye", "Emmanuel Goldstein" and all the
rest of their ilk to go away and hide in their caves in Afghanistan,
with their buddies bin Laden and Zawahiri and await the next B-1 full
of deep penetrators which they all richly deserve.




You are proving yourself to be the idiot. You have not explained ANY of
the scientific evidence. Scienctific laws CANNOT be changed. But since
you think they can be, perhaps you believe in Martians too?

"TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
landing.

BTW, I neither believe nor disbelieve in extraterrestrials, but I *do*
believe in crackpots (see above)!

The scientific facts are that a bunch of savage Wahabbi radicals
hijacked four airliners, killed the crews and proceeded to fly two of
them into the WTC and another into the Pentagon.

The plane that hit the WTC each packed several kilotons equivalent
energy which caused major structural degradation, then the subsequent
fire of 50+ tons of jet fuel, further degraded the structures until they
collapsed.

That sums up the engineering analysis of WTC. The plane that hit the
Pentagon effectively hit a very hard wall, disintegrated and burned up.
Pieces of steel were found at the site, along with minor external damage
at the site.

The passengers on the fourth plane, hearing about the first two, decided
to do something about it and overpowered some of the hijackers. The
hijackers in the cockpit either broke the plane in midair or dived it
into the ground, killing all aboard.

Now, what part of the facts doesn't "TRUTH" understand?

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

snipped to save readers - since the bandwidth question is moot...


"TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
landing.

I have a kill file of exactly - one.
And that's the boy right there, officer!


The passengers on the fourth plane, hearing about the first two, decided
to do something about it and overpowered some of the hijackers. The
hijackers in the cockpit either broke the plane in midair or dived it
into the ground, killing all aboard.

I'm still rather upset that more honor has not been officially bestowed
on these people. I think of them as our modern Minute Men.

Just a few minutes into an orchestrated attack on our nation, these
people ACTED, and to my mind, became the new American Patriots.



Now, what part of the facts doesn't "TRUTH" understand?

Well, he wasn't too sharp on Bernoulli.

Still waiting for the inevitable denunciation of the Seven Basic Machines.
I have to admit, this is the first time I've EVER found Wikipedia useful G.

For those unfortunate souls in rec.travel.air and rec.aviation.military who
missed the first show....




But those statements do not apply to controlled demolitions at the WTC


What made you think that this is rec.WTC.collapse.conspiracy.for.clueless.
ragheads.that.dont.yet.understand.the.mechanics.o f.a.bicycle?

Hells bells, boy. We have to start your technical education SOMEwhere.

I thought Bernoulli would be a relevant beginning point.

LOTS of hot air, but no lift...


Richard

TRUTH wrote:


Don't understand that at all. Perhaps if you used scientific evidence....


Grim. Ok, I think we should "start at the very beginning".


Machine
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

In mechanics, a machine is a technological device that is designed to do
something cool. Technologists throughout the ages have identified seven (7)
basic machines from which all other machines can be constructed.

The Seven (7) Basic Machines from which All Other Machines Can be Constructed

1. the screw
2. the wing nut
3. the wheel and hubcap
4. the big heavy rock
5. the pointed stick
6. the VLSI integrated circuit
7. duct tape


Chronology

The first compound machine, a big heavy rock covered with duct tape, was
invented by Og the Cave Person in 500,000 BCE. Later that evening, he figured
out a practical use for this peculiar contraption: clubbing baby proto-kittens
for fun and profit.

The next important innovation was the Rube Goldberg Machine, coincidentally
invented and patented by none other than Leonard Bernstein in 1903. Using a
mere 3,141,592,653 parts (note: some authorities say 3,141,592,655), it was
the first machine ever built that could successfully peel a tangerine by the
power of thought alone.