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

TRUTH wrote:

Mike wrote in
:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:50:41 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

That PE is not thinking clearly. If you had a brain you could see that
dummy

Actually, I am thinking. I am thinking about my current project
rather than your current fantasy. Do a little reasearch on
progressive collapse. The manner in which all 3 buildings collapsed
is more feasable than the planning and secret hiding of expolsives
that is suggested by you.

You're a government shill

And you're a kook loon.

See - naysaying is easy.

Graham

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Mike wrote in
:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:50:41 GMT, TRUTH wrote:


That PE is not thinking clearly. If you had a brain you could see that
dummy

Actually, I am thinking. I am thinking about my current project
rather than your current fantasy. Do a little reasearch on
progressive collapse. The manner in which all 3 buildings collapsed
is more feasable than the planning and secret hiding of expolsives
that is suggested by you.



You're a government shill

We are *ALL* government shills and are coming to take you *AWAY*!!
HOO,HAAA HAH HAH!

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

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

There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as
huge trusses, arranged non-symmetrically, along with some fifty-seven
perimeter columns, as indicated in the diagram below (FEMA, 2002, chapter
5; NIST, 2005).

Yes, and when the fire burned for a wile, those 24 "huge" (not that
huge, actually) columns got moderately hot, they lost enough strength to
fail.

The thing about huge building like these is that when one part fails,
the rest of the building is almost never designed to handle the
asymmetrical stresses from that failure. Knocking a skyscraper down is
easy, knocking it down *accurately* is the hard part.

In article ,
on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:04:54 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

"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

Get back to us when you start to present some science...

No, wait. Don't get back to us at all.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:45:38 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....


With the stuff I'm volunteering in, I would never give my real name. I rely
on credentials of people like Dr Jones who know what *all* the evidence is.
And I try to get people to understand it.

If you insist on relying on someone who holds rather odd beliefs do not be
surprised if many discount his (and your) views...



If the evidence is false, it should be explained why it is false.

People have been, you just keep whistling to you can't hear them..

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:36:23 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....


You might not understand what he means by squibs. Squibs are the puffs of
smoke caused by the controlled charges.

No they aren't.

It becomes obvious Jones doesn't know what he is talking about either.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article fYCLf.26213$Ug4.6905@dukeread12,
on Fri, 24 Feb 2006 06:26:45 -0600,
Dan attempted to say .....

TRUTH wrote:
"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in
:


TRUTH wrote:

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in
:


TRUTH wrote:


Dan wrote in news:vTkLf.23573$Ug4.4522@dukeread12:



TRUTH wrote:


Dan wrote in news:AzjLf.23564$Ug4.7379@dukeread12:



TRUTH wrote:


Dan wrote in
news:f%fLf.22178$Ug4.21685@dukeread12:



TRUTH wrote:


Jim Logajan wrote in



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.
Obviously you don't. Take a look at any major controlled
demolition.


It takes weeks of preparation that includes removal of walls,
windows and structural members as well as making cuts in steel
supports, drilling of holes and cutting rebar in concrete
members, installing charges and det cord etc. Very little of
which can be done without all kinds of people noticing. How
come no one noticed the debris being hauled away before 9-11?
Det cord is orange or bright red and about
3/8"


in diameter and no one noticed many hundreds of yards of this
stuff strung about? You keep referring to squibs, do you know
what they are
or


the difference between a squib and a shaped charge?

As for the "puffs of smoke" jetting out from windows below
the
falling floors they would be from windows being blown out by
air driven by the mass of falling floors. Same with debris
going horizontal.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yes it does take weeks. Bu that fact does not debunk the
evidence.
OK, then answer the rest of what I said. How come no one
noticed the
removed walls, the debris being carted off, the exposed supports,
the hundreds of yards of det cord, the prepped structural members
etc? At the very least everyone who had access to the underground
parking lots would have noticed the precut supports.

I have no idea. Any idea would be pure speculation, and would not
prove anything.





Jones' refuted the "air-expulsion due to floors collapsing"
theory of the squibs. See his paper for the details.
I have and he doesn't know what he is talking about. Squibs are
more
commonly used for special effects, ejection seats and small jobs
like that.

You might not understand what he means by squibs. Squibs are the
puffs of smoke caused by the controlled charges. Take a look at
the videos on www.implosionworld.com and compare them.




Have you seen the squibs yourself? There are video clips at the
bottom of this page:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
OK, save me the trouble of watching all the clips and tell me
which
video shows these "squibs." I am having trouble visualizing how
squibs would be used in place of shaped charges and kickers.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Okay...

WTC 7 (NOT hit by an airplane):
http://tinyurl.com/eygeh
WTC 7 has been explained satisfactorily elsewhere in this thread.



If you really think that, then you are delusional. All the evidence
that has been shown proves WTC7 to be brought down by controlled
demolition. If you think otherwise, then copy and paste the info
below:






North Tower Squibs:
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2...s-1-marked.avi

South Tower Squibs:
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2...s-1-marked.avi
Neither video plays for me. Do they show the actual explosive
devices
or just the puffs of smoke? If it's the latter they don't provide
proof of explosives.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



I never said the puffs of smoke "prove" anything

Please try rereading the whole thread. You simply ignore anything
which does not match your fantasy. Given your commitment to this
nutcase theory I suspect that you are the idiot prof himself trying
to hide your identity.





You are really an idiot. I feel very sorry for, and all the other
stupid
assholes who are so brainwashed that you can't see right in from of
your faces. You are really really pathetic. And you childish comments
just prove your ignorance and your overall goal, which it to believe
a proofless goverment version.


As I said you pay no attention to reality or to anyone who disagrees.
You complain about qualifications without showing any and take the
evaluation of your prof. Then you refuse to listen to a PE who has
structural experience.

You are a nut.




Ohhhh **** off, schmuck

Now there is a lucid argument from a supposed adult.

I suspect he is 14...

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:58:51 GMT,
Orval Fairbairn attempted to say .....

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Mike wrote in
:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:50:41 GMT, TRUTH wrote:


That PE is not thinking clearly. If you had a brain you could see that
dummy

Actually, I am thinking. I am thinking about my current project
rather than your current fantasy. Do a little reasearch on
progressive collapse. The manner in which all 3 buildings collapsed
is more feasable than the planning and secret hiding of expolsives
that is suggested by you.



You're a government shill

We are *ALL* government shills and are coming to take you *AWAY*!!
HOO,HAAA HAH HAH!

I'm buying stock in straw for all the baskets he will make.....


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
on Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:58:51 GMT,
Orval Fairbairn attempted to say .....

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Mike wrote in
:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:50:41 GMT, TRUTH wrote:


That PE is not thinking clearly. If you had a brain you could see that
dummy
Actually, I am thinking. I am thinking about my current project
rather than your current fantasy. Do a little reasearch on
progressive collapse. The manner in which all 3 buildings collapsed
is more feasable than the planning and secret hiding of expolsives
that is suggested by you.


You're a government shill
We are *ALL* government shills and are coming to take you *AWAY*!!
HOO,HAAA HAH HAH!

I'm buying stock in straw for all the baskets he will make.....


He will be able to spin that straw into gold, Rumpledforeskin is his
name.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired