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

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in newslgLf.22321$Ug4.11952@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:

His arguments are based on scientific principles. They do not have to
be convincing,
Then forgive us for not being convinced.

since scientific laws cannot be changed, such as the Law of
Increasing Entropy.
Entropy applies here how?

Are you an engineer or physicist?


No. Are you?

Evasion noted.



How do explain THREE collapses at near free fall speed? First time in
history from fire!
There weren't any collapses at near free fall speed. They were
considerably slower.


Wrong. Towers collapsed in 10 seconds maximum. Building 7 was about 7
seconds.


Do the math, the formula is D = 16T^2



Where did the energy come from to pulvarize concrete and office
furniture into particles of fine powder?
The mass of the floors above. The formula is F = MA. Look it up.


Absurd and illogical. You cannot simply take a formula and plug the
information in and expect an accurate answer.

That's precisely what formulae are for. I assume you took some math
and science in school. What do you think they were trying to teach you?

Actually using simple formulae is exactly how it's done. It's done
repeatedly or plugged into another formula or both. Calculus simplifies
this, computers make it even easier. No matter how big the equation is
it is made up of smaller parts that can be worked into or out of the
picture. You have repeatedly told us you have no science background so
don't tell us who do how it is done. What is "absurd and illogical" is
your insisting you know better when you also say you don't.

Did you know Ke (kinetic energy)= 1/2mv^2 is an application of F = ma?


Buildings NEVER collapsed in that manner before, EXCEPT from controlled
demolitions.

The 21 story Mexico City building did. No matter how many times you
try to ignore it it did collapse that way. I haven't looked at every
single building collapse in history, neither have you, so I can't say
there are other examples or not.


Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?
Heat alone can do that. Metal DOES boil and become a gas at high
enough temperatures.


Desiel fuel burns no where near hot enough to melt steel. So, I repeat:
Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?

Jet fuel is NOT diesel. It is closer to kerosene. What keeps jet
engines from melting is selection of materials and bypass air. Jet fuel
CAN burn steel given enough oxygen and that's what happened. It is more
than apparent you don't know what "force" means since you don't use it
correctly here.





Why was there moltel metal and yellow-hot metal under the Towers (AND
BUILDING 7) weeks after 9/11? (Those colors are consistant with
thermite explosives.)
Wrong again, I have used thermite and it burns white hot and not
for
weeks. Thermite burns at too slow a rate to be used for demolition of
tall buildings. There were fires from broken gas lines. Yellow hot
steel is no where near "molten."


Forgive me, I gave the wrong color. (Jones paper gives the right
information though.) Perhaps you can explain where the energy came from
to cause steel (or iron) to get that hot.

I will say it again: there were fires from broken gas lines. Remember
how NYFD had to put them out before major excavation could begin?





Also, why did the government hall away and destroy the evidence
before it could be properly analyzed?
I assume you mean "haul," now prove they did.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Oh, thank you for correcting my poor spelling.


Here's your proof:


BILL MANNING
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, FIRE ENGINEERING MAGAZINE:
"$elling Out The Investigation" article quotes: "Such destruction of
evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the
value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced
collapse in world history."

"Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully
resourced, forensic investigation is imperative"

"The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a
fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough
investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned."

full article: http://tinyurl.com/3h5mk

The article you cite is flat out wrong as is your suggestion the
salvage was deliberately destroyed before being properly analyzed. The
salvage was taken to Fresh Kills where each piece was forensically
examined before a decision was made to release or not. There is not
enough space nor requirement to keep every piece so that which has no
probative value was sold off.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired