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

TRUTH wrote:
"HankC" wrote in
oups.com:


TRUTH wrote:

Just out of curiousity, what does the professor think of the plane
that hit the Pentagon and the one that went down in Shanksville? and
the people on those flights who are missing but their voices were
synthesized?


HankC



You'll have to ask him that.

Perhaps you can explain how it fits into *your* conspiracy theory?


HankC

TRUTH wrote:

"HankC" wrote in
oups.com:


TRUTH wrote:

Just out of curiousity, what does the professor think of the plane
that hit the Pentagon and the one that went down in Shanksville? and
the people on those flights who are missing but their voices were
synthesized?


HankC




You'll have to ask him that.

I don't know about the professor, but TRUTH posted his view previously.
It was a small military plane and not a 757 at the Pentagon, and the 757
passengers died elsewhere.

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:IllLf.23582$Ug4.1739@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
I find it very interesting how no one is countering any of the real
evidence. Everyone must be afraid, since they know they can't. They
just stick with the more easily debunkable material, and they claimed
they debunked everything.

You think you know about 9/11? Then debunk Jones' 17 reasons. You
think you have the slightest clue about what happened on 9/11? Prove
it!


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

"Seventeen reasons for advancing the controlled-demolition hypothesis
while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are
delineated here. (No rebuttal can be complete, of course, unless it
addresses all of these points.)"



Again you bring this "peer reviewed paper" up as if you wave it
often
enough it becomes the truth. It has been debunked here and by faculty
in his own school. Keep trying, I bet you will find tens of people
world wide who will believe you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired





This is the 3rd time I'm asking you: point me to the thread and I will
read it

And I will tell you for the second time start with this thread. Do try
to stay focused.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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.

"HankC" wrote in news:1140726364.857237.286280
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


TRUTH wrote:
"HankC" wrote in
oups.com:


TRUTH wrote:

Just out of curiousity, what does the professor think of the plane
that hit the Pentagon and the one that went down in Shanksville? and
the people on those flights who are missing but their voices were
synthesized?


HankC



You'll have to ask him that.

Perhaps you can explain how it fits into *your* conspiracy theory?


HankC



I aleady did. Read my previous posts

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 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

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

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

Actually, Silverstein (the guy who leased the WTC) hired an engineer o
show that the failure of the buildings was due to the attacks, and not
due to faulty construction (that was important to his insurance claims
for the buildings).

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

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

No, he said to "pull it," meaning "pull the firefighters out of the
building, there's been enough loss of life already and we're not going
to save it."

"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.


As you should see. The engineer hired by Larry Silverman is wrong.
See these videos of a controlled demolitions.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com...t/jlhudson.mpg
http://www.controlled-demolition.com...t/kingdome.mpg
Clearly in these videos, the charges are not set off simultaneously,
but rather incrementally in order to get the building to fall in the
desired location.