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

Dan wrote in news:IpjLf.23563$Ug4.13024@dukeread12:

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.



Actually, no it's not. When there are unknowns, they must also be taken
into acount. In you believe otherwise, then your education is faulty.





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.


That building was no more than 3 stories tall. Anyone with eyes can see
that. That tiny building did NOT pulvarise to dust.

NO STEEL FRAMED HI RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPES FROM FIRE PERIOD!

YOU are the one ignoring the evidence. So stop projecting it onto me.





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.


Instead of childishly insulting me, how about admitting that burning jet
fuel does not get hot enough to melt steel?





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?



Okay, if that case, show me some information proving that gas fires can
get hot enough to melt steel.

Also, explain how the gas fires got hot enough to cause 47 steel columns
to simultaniously sever.




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



Oh really. Show me just one article from a reputable source verifying
that.

NOTE: Fire Engineering is not a "newsstand" magazine. It is a
professional trade journal, for fire houses. I could assure you, the
article is 100% correct.

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:IpjLf.23563$Ug4.13024@dukeread12:

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.



Actually, no it's not. When there are unknowns, they must also be taken
into acount. In you believe otherwise, then your education is faulty.


What do you think equations are for? Of course they are to solve for
unknowns. I never said otherwise. Apparently you are as weak on
communication as you are on science and math.





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.


That building was no more than 3 stories tall.

It was 21 stories before collapse.

Anyone with eyes can see
that. That tiny building did NOT pulvarise to dust.

Neither did WTC.


NO STEEL FRAMED HI RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPES FROM FIRE PERIOD!

Prove it.

YOU are the one ignoring the evidence. So stop projecting it onto me.


No, you are altering the test here. You never specified collapse due
to fire until now.





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.


Instead of childishly insulting me, how about admitting that burning jet
fuel does not get hot enough to melt steel?

I might have had it been true. Besides, I have seen jet fuel/oxygen
burn through steel. It's all a mater of how it's burned. Let me try an
analogy you might be able to understand: a Coleman™ stove. If you pour
the fuel on the ground and light it you get a relatively cool flame. Now
run it through your stove. The gas generator is heated by the burner.
The gas generator turns the liquid fuel into a gas. The gas form burns
much hotter than the liquid form. The same was true at WTC, initially
the fire was relatively cool until it started sucking air in from
outside at a high rate, imagine a chimney effect, giving the fire a
higher oxygen burn rate. This is essentially a variation of how a jet
engine works. The exhaust gas temperatures are much higher than simple
burning liquid jet fuel. Now imagine another analogy: a kerosene lamp.
When you light the wick you get a low, dim flame. Put the chimney back
and the air around the flame heats up. This sucks in more air at a
higher rate than before which makes the flame burn hotter and brighter.

Now the same jet fuel that can burn hot enough to melt steel can also
burn cool enough to use in a cigarette lighter. Now you know where I
used to get free lighter fluid many moons ago when I smoked.


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?



Okay, if that case, show me some information proving that gas fires can
get hot enough to melt steel.

See above. Besides have you ever heard of oxygen/acetylene welding?
It melts steel. Acetylene is a hydrocarbon fairly close to natural gas
in energy. Know what the difference between an oxygen/acetylene welding
torch and an oxygen/acetylene cutting torch is? Without going into
detail the cutting torch burns more efficiently generating a higher
temperature which cuts the steel by vapourising it.

Also, explain how the gas fires got hot enough to cause 47 steel columns
to simultaniously sever.

I never said it did. You asked about the hot steel AFTER the
collapse, remember? See above.



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



Oh really. Show me just one article from a reputable source verifying
that.

Just as soon as you start citing reputable sources for your claims.

NOTE: Fire Engineering is not a "newsstand" magazine. It is a
professional trade journal, for fire houses. I could assure you, the
article is 100% correct.

Then your assurance would be wrong. You also assured us Jones' paper
was peer reviewed so your assurances mean nothing to me. I used to be a
gunsmith and I found errors in trade journals.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote in news:6DkLf.23572$Ug4.8179@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:IpjLf.23563$Ug4.13024@dukeread12:

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.



Actually, no it's not. When there are unknowns, they must also be
taken into acount. In you believe otherwise, then your education is
faulty.


What do you think equations are for? Of course they are to solve
for
unknowns. I never said otherwise. Apparently you are as weak on
communication as you are on science and math.


You call me weak? You're the one using not looking at all the data









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.


That building was no more than 3 stories tall.

It was 21 stories before collapse.

Anyone with eyes can see
that. That tiny building did NOT pulvarise to dust.

Neither did WTC.


NO STEEL FRAMED HI RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPES FROM FIRE PERIOD!

Prove it.



When I find the link, I will provide it. (Despite the fact that you
haven't provided ANY evidence of your own, other than the Mexico Ciy
collapse that was not caused by fire.)




YOU are the one ignoring the evidence. So stop projecting it onto me.


No, you are altering the test here. You never specified collapse
due
to fire until now.



Take a look at the "FACTS" post that I posted a number of times. Fire has
NEVER caused a steel framed building to completely collapse. And
definitely not straight down, at near free fall speed, with accompanying
squibs and all!




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.


Instead of childishly insulting me, how about admitting that burning
jet fuel does not get hot enough to melt steel?

I might have had it been true. Besides, I have seen jet fuel/oxygen
burn through steel. It's all a mater of how it's burned. Let me try an
analogy you might be able to understand: a Coleman™ stove. If you pour
the fuel on the ground and light it you get a relatively cool flame.
Now run it through your stove. The gas generator is heated by the
burner. The gas generator turns the liquid fuel into a gas. The gas
form burns much hotter than the liquid form. The same was true at WTC,
initially the fire was relatively cool until it started sucking air in
from outside at a high rate, imagine a chimney effect, giving the fire
a higher oxygen burn rate. This is essentially a variation of how a
jet engine works. The exhaust gas temperatures are much higher than
simple burning liquid jet fuel. Now imagine another analogy: a
kerosene lamp. When you light the wick you get a low, dim flame. Put
the chimney back and the air around the flame heats up. This sucks in
more air at a higher rate than before which makes the flame burn
hotter and brighter.

Now the same jet fuel that can burn hot enough to melt steel can
also
burn cool enough to use in a cigarette lighter. Now you know where I
used to get free lighter fluid many moons ago when I smoked.


Please provide a link where all that information can be verified by a
physicist, or similar expert. You might know about NORAD, but your USAF
background does not cover steel melting fires. Sorry.





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?



Okay, if that case, show me some information proving that gas fires
can get hot enough to melt steel.

See above. Besides have you ever heard of oxygen/acetylene welding?
It melts steel. Acetylene is a hydrocarbon fairly close to natural gas
in energy. Know what the difference between an oxygen/acetylene
welding torch and an oxygen/acetylene cutting torch is? Without going
into detail the cutting torch burns more efficiently generating a
higher temperature which cuts the steel by vapourising it.


How exactly does all this apply to the WTC?




Also, explain how the gas fires got hot enough to cause 47 steel
columns to simultaniously sever.

I never said it did. You asked about the hot steel AFTER the
collapse, remember? See above.



I asked you numerous times how the 47 massive steel columns got severed.
In addition, how they got severed simultaneuosly, in both towers. I am
still waiting for that answer.






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



Oh really. Show me just one article from a reputable source verifying
that.

Just as soon as you start citing reputable sources for your claims.


If you don't consider Fire Engineering a reputable source, then your
thinking is not clear and there's nothing more I can do for you. Sorry





NOTE: Fire Engineering is not a "newsstand" magazine. It is a
professional trade journal, for fire houses. I could assure you, the
article is 100% correct.

Then your assurance would be wrong. You also assured us Jones'
paper
was peer reviewed so your assurances mean nothing to me. I used to be
a gunsmith and I found errors in trade journals.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:6DkLf.23572$Ug4.8179@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:IpjLf.23563$Ug4.13024@dukeread12:

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.


Actually, no it's not. When there are unknowns, they must also be
taken into acount. In you believe otherwise, then your education is
faulty.

What do you think equations are for? Of course they are to solve
for
unknowns. I never said otherwise. Apparently you are as weak on
communication as you are on science and math.


You call me weak? You're the one using not looking at all the data


Stop being so sensitive, lots of people are poor communicators and
don't understand logic, math or science.





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.

That building was no more than 3 stories tall.
It was 21 stories before collapse.

Anyone with eyes can see
that. That tiny building did NOT pulvarise to dust.
Neither did WTC.

NO STEEL FRAMED HI RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPES FROM FIRE PERIOD!
Prove it.



When I find the link, I will provide it. (Despite the fact that you
haven't provided ANY evidence of your own, other than the Mexico Ciy
collapse that was not caused by fire.)



YOU are the one ignoring the evidence. So stop projecting it onto me.

No, you are altering the test here. You never specified collapse
due
to fire until now.



Take a look at the "FACTS" post that I posted a number of times. Fire has
NEVER caused a steel framed building to completely collapse. And
definitely not straight down, at near free fall speed, with accompanying
squibs and all!




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.

Instead of childishly insulting me, how about admitting that burning
jet fuel does not get hot enough to melt steel?
I might have had it been true. Besides, I have seen jet fuel/oxygen
burn through steel. It's all a mater of how it's burned. Let me try an
analogy you might be able to understand: a Coleman™ stove. If you pour
the fuel on the ground and light it you get a relatively cool flame.
Now run it through your stove. The gas generator is heated by the
burner. The gas generator turns the liquid fuel into a gas. The gas
form burns much hotter than the liquid form. The same was true at WTC,
initially the fire was relatively cool until it started sucking air in
from outside at a high rate, imagine a chimney effect, giving the fire
a higher oxygen burn rate. This is essentially a variation of how a
jet engine works. The exhaust gas temperatures are much higher than
simple burning liquid jet fuel. Now imagine another analogy: a
kerosene lamp. When you light the wick you get a low, dim flame. Put
the chimney back and the air around the flame heats up. This sucks in
more air at a higher rate than before which makes the flame burn
hotter and brighter.

Now the same jet fuel that can burn hot enough to melt steel can
also
burn cool enough to use in a cigarette lighter. Now you know where I
used to get free lighter fluid many moons ago when I smoked.


Please provide a link where all that information can be verified by a
physicist, or similar expert. You might know about NORAD, but your USAF
background does not cover steel melting fires. Sorry.



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?


Okay, if that case, show me some information proving that gas fires
can get hot enough to melt steel.
See above. Besides have you ever heard of oxygen/acetylene welding?
It melts steel. Acetylene is a hydrocarbon fairly close to natural gas
in energy. Know what the difference between an oxygen/acetylene
welding torch and an oxygen/acetylene cutting torch is? Without going
into detail the cutting torch burns more efficiently generating a
higher temperature which cuts the steel by vapourising it.


How exactly does all this apply to the WTC?

I answered your question how jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt
steel. Please try to stay focused.




Also, explain how the gas fires got hot enough to cause 47 steel
columns to simultaniously sever.
I never said it did. You asked about the hot steel AFTER the
collapse, remember? See above.



I asked you numerous times how the 47 massive steel columns got severed.
In addition, how they got severed simultaneuosly, in both towers. I am
still waiting for that answer.

OK, try this on for size: they didn't. They didn't need to to cause
the collapse as it happened.


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


Oh really. Show me just one article from a reputable source verifying
that.
Just as soon as you start citing reputable sources for your claims.


If you don't consider Fire Engineering a reputable source, then your
thinking is not clear and there's nothing more I can do for you. Sorry

I never said it wasn't. I just said the article was wrong. You have
yet to provide reputable sources for any of your other claims.





NOTE: Fire Engineering is not a "newsstand" magazine. It is a
professional trade journal, for fire houses. I could assure you, the
article is 100% correct.
Then your assurance would be wrong. You also assured us Jones'
paper
was peer reviewed so your assurances mean nothing to me. I used to be
a gunsmith and I found errors in trade journals.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote in news:2jlLf.23581$Ug4.9378@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:6DkLf.23572$Ug4.8179@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:IpjLf.23563$Ug4.13024@dukeread12:

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.


Actually, no it's not. When there are unknowns, they must also be
taken into acount. In you believe otherwise, then your education is
faulty.

What do you think equations are for? Of course they are to solve
for
unknowns. I never said otherwise. Apparently you are as weak on
communication as you are on science and math.


You call me weak? You're the one using not looking at all the data


Stop being so sensitive, lots of people are poor communicators and
don't understand logic, math or science.



Stop projecting how you feel about yourself onto me.







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.

That building was no more than 3 stories tall.
It was 21 stories before collapse.

Anyone with eyes can see
that. That tiny building did NOT pulvarise to dust.
Neither did WTC.

NO STEEL FRAMED HI RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPES FROM FIRE
PERIOD!
Prove it.



When I find the link, I will provide it. (Despite the fact that you
haven't provided ANY evidence of your own, other than the Mexico Ciy
collapse that was not caused by fire.)



YOU are the one ignoring the evidence. So stop projecting it onto
me.

No, you are altering the test here. You never specified collapse
due
to fire until now.



Take a look at the "FACTS" post that I posted a number of times. Fire
has NEVER caused a steel framed building to completely collapse. And
definitely not straight down, at near free fall speed, with
accompanying squibs and all!




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.

Instead of childishly insulting me, how about admitting that
burning jet fuel does not get hot enough to melt steel?
I might have had it been true. Besides, I have seen jet
fuel/oxygen
burn through steel. It's all a mater of how it's burned. Let me try
an analogy you might be able to understand: a Coleman™ stove. If you
pour the fuel on the ground and light it you get a relatively cool
flame. Now run it through your stove. The gas generator is heated by
the burner. The gas generator turns the liquid fuel into a gas. The
gas form burns much hotter than the liquid form. The same was true
at WTC, initially the fire was relatively cool until it started
sucking air in from outside at a high rate, imagine a chimney
effect, giving the fire a higher oxygen burn rate. This is
essentially a variation of how a jet engine works. The exhaust gas
temperatures are much higher than simple burning liquid jet fuel.
Now imagine another analogy: a kerosene lamp. When you light the
wick you get a low, dim flame. Put the chimney back and the air
around the flame heats up. This sucks in more air at a higher rate
than before which makes the flame burn hotter and brighter.

Now the same jet fuel that can burn hot enough to melt steel can
also
burn cool enough to use in a cigarette lighter. Now you know where I
used to get free lighter fluid many moons ago when I smoked.


Please provide a link where all that information can be verified by a
physicist, or similar expert. You might know about NORAD, but your
USAF background does not cover steel melting fires. Sorry.



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?


Okay, if that case, show me some information proving that gas fires
can get hot enough to melt steel.
See above. Besides have you ever heard of oxygen/acetylene
welding?
It melts steel. Acetylene is a hydrocarbon fairly close to natural
gas in energy. Know what the difference between an oxygen/acetylene
welding torch and an oxygen/acetylene cutting torch is? Without
going into detail the cutting torch burns more efficiently
generating a higher temperature which cuts the steel by vapourising
it.


How exactly does all this apply to the WTC?

I answered your question how jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt
steel. Please try to stay focused.



Sorry, but you are delusional. Am I supposed to believe a retired USAF
pilot over every scientist on the planet?







Also, explain how the gas fires got hot enough to cause 47 steel
columns to simultaniously sever.
I never said it did. You asked about the hot steel AFTER the
collapse, remember? See above.



I asked you numerous times how the 47 massive steel columns got
severed. In addition, how they got severed simultaneuosly, in both
towers. I am still waiting for that answer.

OK, try this on for size: they didn't. They didn't need to to cause
the collapse as it happened.


This structural engineer proves you wrong:



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








Now, stay focused and answer my question.






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


Oh really. Show me just one article from a reputable source
verifying that.
Just as soon as you start citing reputable sources for your
claims.


If you don't consider Fire Engineering a reputable source, then your
thinking is not clear and there's nothing more I can do for you.
Sorry

I never said it wasn't. I just said the article was wrong. You have
yet to provide reputable sources for any of your other claims.



Oh I see.... so the Journal is a reputable source, but an article from
it's own Editor in Chief is not. Ummm, are you drinking??










NOTE: Fire Engineering is not a "newsstand" magazine. It is a
professional trade journal, for fire houses. I could assure you,
the article is 100% correct.
Then your assurance would be wrong. You also assured us Jones'
paper
was peer reviewed so your assurances mean nothing to me. I used to
be a gunsmith and I found errors in trade journals.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired