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

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

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


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

"I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU
on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and
scientific arguments for the controlled demolition theory. In attendance
were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering,
Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and
perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people
present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah
Valley State College).

The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only
when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material
summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the
collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, only one attendee disagreed (by hand-
vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for.
The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about
it and now agreed that more investigation was needed."



Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding are
based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

In other words, you won't find any people using terms like kook, tin foil
hat, or any other childish terms. The people who understand his
scientific evidence are clear minded and not closed asshole headed like a
lot of people in this newsgroup seem to be. You people are pathetic.


You stupid people don't know anything about anything when it comes to
9/11.

The airplanes were flown by remote control. The events were for the
purpose of building public support to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Some
of you will still deny this fact. If so, it will be because your thinking
process is too much filled with tin foil hat commments, and you're too
stupid and brainwashed to understand real evidence

Those facta have no bearing on this at all.

The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.

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

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



"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in
:

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

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


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

"I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at
BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed
evidence and scientific arguments for the controlled demolition
theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical
Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology,
Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not
recognize all of the people present. A local university and college
were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College).

The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended
only when a university class needed the room. After presenting the
material summarized here, including actually looking at and
discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, only one attendee
disagreed (by hand- vote) that further investigation of the WTC
collapses was called for. The next day, the dissenting professor
said he had further thought about it and now agreed that more
investigation was needed."



Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding
are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

In other words, you won't find any people using terms like kook, tin
foil hat, or any other childish terms. The people who understand his
scientific evidence are clear minded and not closed asshole headed
like a lot of people in this newsgroup seem to be. You people are
pathetic.


You stupid people don't know anything about anything when it comes to
9/11.

The airplanes were flown by remote control. The events were for the
purpose of building public support to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
Some of you will still deny this fact. If so, it will be because your
thinking process is too much filled with tin foil hat commments, and
you're too stupid and brainwashed to understand real evidence

Well they do connect to the question of his credibility.

TRUTH wrote:

Those facta have no bearing on this at all.

The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.

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

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



"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in
:


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

TRUTH wrote:

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


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

"I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at
BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed
evidence and scientific arguments for the controlled demolition
theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical
Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology,
Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not
recognize all of the people present. A local university and college
were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College).

The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended
only when a university class needed the room. After presenting the
material summarized here, including actually looking at and
discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, only one attendee
disagreed (by hand- vote) that further investigation of the WTC
collapses was called for. The next day, the dissenting professor
said he had further thought about it and now agreed that more
investigation was needed."



Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding
are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

In other words, you won't find any people using terms like kook, tin
foil hat, or any other childish terms. The people who understand his
scientific evidence are clear minded and not closed asshole headed
like a lot of people in this newsgroup seem to be. You people are
pathetic.


You stupid people don't know anything about anything when it comes to
9/11.

The airplanes were flown by remote control. The events were for the
purpose of building public support to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
Some of you will still deny this fact. If so, it will be because your
thinking process is too much filled with tin foil hat commments, and
you're too stupid and brainwashed to understand real evidence

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

Those facta have no bearing on this at all.

The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.

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

Explain why. After the initial accelleration of the upper floors, the
forces applied on the lower floors would be much greater than they
were designed for. Thus, the lower portion of the building would
provide little resistance and allow for a quick collapse.

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


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

Mike wrote in
:

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

Those facta have no bearing on this at all.

The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.

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

Explain why. After the initial accelleration of the upper floors, the
forces applied on the lower floors would be much greater than they
were designed for. Thus, the lower portion of the building would
provide little resistance and allow for a quick collapse.

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


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


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

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

"It was the fire ... causing the failure of the steel columns and that
caused the collapse"
http://wcbs880.com/topstories/topsto...113150328.html

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




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

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

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

Mike wrote in
:

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

Those facta have no bearing on this at all.

The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.

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

Explain why. After the initial accelleration of the upper floors, the
forces applied on the lower floors would be much greater than they
were designed for. Thus, the lower portion of the building would
provide little resistance and allow for a quick collapse.

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


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


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

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

The collapse can certainly resemble a controlled demolition, without
actually being a controlled demolition. The WTC suffered from a
progressive collapse. Controlled demolitions also use progressive
collapse to bring down buildings. Therefore the statement that "the
WTC collapses resembled controlled demolition" really isn't all that
interesting.

"It was the fire ... causing the failure of the steel columns and that
caused the collapse"
http://wcbs880.com/topstories/topsto...113150328.html

"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a
building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they
cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly
what it looked like and that's what happened."
Video: www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html
..................
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in controlled demolitions,
they do not cause the failure of all of the columns simultaneously.
The charges are triggered with time delays to be certain that the
building falls in the desired location.





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

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

Mike wrote in
news
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:50:37 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

Mike wrote in
m:

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

Those facta have no bearing on this at all.

The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.

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

Explain why. After the initial accelleration of the upper floors,
the forces applied on the lower floors would be much greater than
they were designed for. Thus, the lower portion of the building
would provide little resistance and allow for a quick collapse.

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


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


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

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

The collapse can certainly resemble a controlled demolition, without
actually being a controlled demolition. The WTC suffered from a
progressive collapse. Controlled demolitions also use progressive
collapse to bring down buildings. Therefore the statement that "the
WTC collapses resembled controlled demolition" really isn't all that
interesting.


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




"It was the fire ... causing the failure of the steel columns and that
caused the collapse"
http://wcbs880.com/topstories/topsto...113150328.html

"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a
building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because
they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's
exactly what it looked like and that's what happened."
Video: www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html
..................
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in controlled demolitions,
they do not cause the failure of all of the columns simultaneously.
The charges are triggered with time delays to be certain that the
building falls in the desired location.


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





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

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

TRUTH wrote:

Levy has stated in the past that fire brought down the WTC buildings on
9/11. But it is interesting that he also made a public statement saying
the WTC collapses resembled controlled demolition.

Do you read what you write?

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

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

(Matthys Levy

"It was the fire ... causing the failure of the steel columns and that
caused the collapse"
http://wcbs880.com/topstories/topsto...113150328.html

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


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

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

mrtravel wrote in
. com:

TRUTH wrote:

Levy has stated in the past that fire brought down the WTC buildings
on 9/11. But it is interesting that he also made a public statement
saying the WTC collapses resembled controlled demolition.

Do you read what you write?

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

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

(Matthys Levy

"It was the fire ... causing the failure of the steel columns and
that caused the collapse"
http://wcbs880.com/topstories/topsto...113150328.html

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


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

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



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

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

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




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

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

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



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



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



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

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

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



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



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



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

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



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



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

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

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



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



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