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

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:
FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!

When the buildings next to it collapsed, all the kinetic energy of
the debris radiated outward on impacting the ground. It got hit by a
"shaped" explosion that tore into its base. No mystery except to
those who get their physics second hand.

totally illogical. It never happened before.

You are unqualified to make that determination. As I said before, I
have a physics degree. You don't. Contact the University of Minnesota
and ask them if James Logajan holds a degree in physics if you don't
believe me.

I believe you.



I'm using my real name and have nothing to hide. What is your real
name, and where did you get your education? If you insist on arguing
from authority, you need to present your credentials.


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




FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall
speed, into their own footprints.

Steel frame buildings have collapsed in strong earthquakes in
precisely the same manner. Scroll down to "Totally Collapsed
21-Story Steel Frame Office Building" in this set of slides:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/...3_slides.shtml


None of those building's collapsed almost symmetrically, near free
fall speed, into their own footprints. And none of those Mexico City
buildings are steel framed.

Which part of "Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building"
do you not understand? Why do you outright lie when presented with
facts like these? The photo shows the remains of a steel framed
building that has clearly collapsed into its own footprint.


Hmmmm... I will check into that. That was from an earthquake though.




FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out
of all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.

Puffs of smoke may be fact - "sign of controlled demolition" is
speculation. So your statement is not a fact. If puffs of smoke had
not come out of the buildings immediately prior to collapse, then
THAT would have been peculiar!


Watch the clips

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


See the squibs he

http://st12.startlogic.com/
~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

1) Explosions would be set to occur before or at the collapse - not
after.

The WTC 7 squibs from the startlogic site above come a few miliseconds
after the collapse starts.


The squibs in the Towers come right below the sections that are collapsing.
And this continues in different sections (on different floors) as the
Towers collapse.


2) If the lower floors collapsed first, then the compressed air
must escape somehow - windows would be expected to be blown out as the
building collapses.


Jones proved that the air expulsion theory is discounted. Search his paper
for "expulsion":
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html



3) If there was a conspiracy to blow up the building, it would have
been easier to blow one side of the building - only an incompetent
conspirator would go to the trouble of planting explosives in the
upper floors _and_ arrange a symmetrical collapse. Needless hard work.


Yes. And the collapses of all three buildings mimick expert, perfect
controlled demolition.

WTC 7 had several government agencies, and a lot of ENRON documents. It is
theorized that that was one reason to completely destroy the building.


Please watch the video clips of WTC7 collapsing. The fact of controlled
demolition is more than obvious. Compare it to implosions at
www.implosionworld.com




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. Also, Bush's brother Marvin was one of the directors in
charge of WTC security.

Um, doesn't lack of power make drilling harder? And just how does one
person manage such a vast security breach? This is taking place in the
center of an area that has one of the highest population densities on
the planet. Don't you think that someone might have noticed something?
How many people do you think live and work near there anyway???


What you said is all true. We will never know exactly how it was done.



FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's
insurance company told the Discovery Channel that the Towers'
massive vertical columns all failed simultaneously, and mimicked
controlled demolition

Since a steel frame building collapsed in just the same manner in a
Mexican earthquake, we now know that simultaneous collapse does not
need human action.


This is not true

Explain why not.


That must have been the only steel framed building to ever completely
collapse from anything other than controlled demolition. Still, it did not
collapse from fire, and we don't know how long it took for that collapse to
occur. For all we know, it could have taken hours. And, although I admit
not being an expert, I would bet it could not really be classified as a
total collapse.


You're a physicist? Please take the time to read Jones' paper in it's
entirely. Also take the other information into consideration. If you're a
physicist, and you look at the real information, you should have problem
seeing it.

Orval Fairbairn wrote in newsrfairbairn-
:

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Orval Fairbairn wrote in
news
In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

(snipped)

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


*WE* are not arguing with science! It is "TRUTH" who is and is
losing
-- badly!

1) "TRUTH" posits a crackpot professor's idea and claims that it has
been peer reviewed. It has -- but the good professor's peers reject
the story.

2) "TRUTH" posts in aviation newsgroups seeking validation for his
(or
some other crackpot's) contention that the hijackers couldn't have
flown the 757s into the buildings and gets 100% response that they
could have done it.

3) "TRUTH" posits that no plane struck the Pentagon -- Purdue
University shows the complete engineering analysis of what happened
when the lane hit the Pentagon.

It is time for "TRUTH", "EagleEye", "Emmanuel Goldstein" and all the
rest of their ilk to go away and hide in their caves in Afghanistan,
with their buddies bin Laden and Zawahiri and await the next B-1
full
of deep penetrators which they all richly deserve.




You are proving yourself to be the idiot. You have not explained ANY
of
the scientific evidence. Scienctific laws CANNOT be changed. But since
you think they can be, perhaps you believe in Martians too?

"TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
landing.

BTW, I neither believe nor disbelieve in extraterrestrials, but I *do*
believe in crackpots (see above)!

The scientific facts are that a bunch of savage Wahabbi radicals
hijacked four airliners, killed the crews and proceeded to fly two of
them into the WTC and another into the Pentagon.

The plane that hit the WTC each packed several kilotons equivalent
energy which caused major structural degradation, then the subsequent
fire of 50+ tons of jet fuel, further degraded the structures until
they
collapsed.

That sums up the engineering analysis of WTC. The plane that hit the
Pentagon effectively hit a very hard wall, disintegrated and burned up.
Pieces of steel were found at the site, along with minor external
damage
at the site.

The passengers on the fourth plane, hearing about the first two,
decided
to do something about it and overpowered some of the hijackers. The
hijackers in the cockpit either broke the plane in midair or dived it
into the ground, killing all aboard.

Now, what part of the facts doesn't "TRUTH" understand?




Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not scientific. There
are dozens of things you are not taking into consideration.


If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should have no
problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not apply. Go read his
paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his statements. It's only
the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the scientific evidence
shows otherwise. Prove yourself to be normal. Take the time and go
through his paper. Here's the URL

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

It's obvious that you don't want to face the truth! You're brain can't
handle the truth so it resorts to childish, unrelated, irrational
nonnsense! You're making an idiot out of yourselves!





Richard Lamb wrote in
nk.net:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

snipped to save readers - since the bandwidth question is moot...


"TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
landing.

I have a kill file of exactly - one.
And that's the boy right there, officer!


The passengers on the fourth plane, hearing about the first two,
decided to do something about it and overpowered some of the
hijackers. The hijackers in the cockpit either broke the plane in
midair or dived it into the ground, killing all aboard.

I'm still rather upset that more honor has not been officially
bestowed on these people. I think of them as our modern Minute Men.

Just a few minutes into an orchestrated attack on our nation, these
people ACTED, and to my mind, became the new American Patriots.



Now, what part of the facts doesn't "TRUTH" understand?

Well, he wasn't too sharp on Bernoulli.

Still waiting for the inevitable denunciation of the Seven Basic
Machines. I have to admit, this is the first time I've EVER found
Wikipedia useful G.

For those unfortunate souls in rec.travel.air and
rec.aviation.military who missed the first show....




But those statements do not apply to controlled demolitions at the
WTC


What made you think that this is
rec.WTC.collapse.conspiracy.for.clueless.
ragheads.that.dont.yet.understand.the.mechanics.o f.a.bicycle?

Hells bells, boy. We have to start your technical education
SOMEwhere.

I thought Bernoulli would be a relevant beginning point.

LOTS of hot air, but no lift...


Richard

TRUTH wrote:


Don't understand that at all. Perhaps if you used scientific
evidence....


Grim. Ok, I think we should "start at the very beginning".


Machine
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

In mechanics, a machine is a technological device that is designed to
do something cool. Technologists throughout the ages have identified
seven (7) basic machines from which all other machines can be
constructed.

The Seven (7) Basic Machines from which All Other Machines Can be
Constructed

1. the screw
2. the wing nut
3. the wheel and hubcap
4. the big heavy rock
5. the pointed stick
6. the VLSI integrated circuit
7. duct tape


Chronology

The first compound machine, a big heavy rock covered with duct tape,
was invented by Og the Cave Person in 500,000 BCE. Later that evening,
he figured out a practical use for this peculiar contraption: clubbing
baby proto-kittens for fun and profit.

The next important innovation was the Rube Goldberg Machine,
coincidentally invented and patented by none other than Leonard
Bernstein in 1903. Using a mere 3,141,592,653 parts (note: some
authorities say 3,141,592,655), it was the first machine ever built
that could successfully peel a tangerine by the power of thought
alone.

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

TRUTH wrote:


Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not scientific. There
are dozens of things you are not taking into consideration.

You keep using the word "scientific" without any apparent
understanding of its meaning. Why do you keep demanding "scientific
proof" when you don't even understand the science in Jones' paper? You
said so yourself.



If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should have no
problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not apply. Go read his
paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his statements.

It's been done several times, but you don't understand it any more
than you understand Jones.

It's only
the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the scientific evidence
shows otherwise.

Jones is hardly "all the scientific evidence," he's just the one you
choose to believe. When someone provides an FE you say it's not
scientific. FEA is scientific in that the results are reproducible, fit
the known laws of science and have passed peer review. The fact you
don't understand FEA doesn't make it nonscientific.

Prove yourself to be normal. Take the time and go
through his paper. Here's the URL

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


I have and I disagree with his findings. I won't explain why because
you won't understand, you will accuse me of being "unscientific" or
simply dismiss my responses out of hand.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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.

Jones' refuted the "air-expulsion due to floors collapsing" theory of the
squibs. See his paper for the details.

Have you seen the squibs yourself? There are video clips at the bottom of
this page:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

Dan wrote in news:CLgLf.22529$Ug4.21186@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:


Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not scientific. There
are dozens of things you are not taking into consideration.

You keep using the word "scientific" without any apparent
understanding of its meaning. Why do you keep demanding "scientific
proof" when you don't even understand the science in Jones' paper? You
said so yourself.



You are putting words in my mouth and twisting their meaning.
Please Stop.





If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should have no
problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not apply. Go read his
paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his statements.

It's been done several times, but you don't understand it any more
than you understand Jones.


It's been done? Where???? I know of no physicists or engineers who
debunked Jones' paper.





It's only
the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the scientific
evidence
shows otherwise.

Jones is hardly "all the scientific evidence," he's just the one you
choose to believe. When someone provides an FE you say it's not
scientific. FEA is scientific in that the results are reproducible, fit
the known laws of science and have passed peer review. The fact you
don't understand FEA doesn't make it nonscientific.

Prove yourself to be normal. Take the time and go
through his paper. Here's the URL

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


I have and I disagree with his findings. I won't explain why because
you won't understand, you will accuse me of being "unscientific" or
simply dismiss my responses out of hand.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



That's your excuse for the fact that you can't debunk it.

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.


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.

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

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:CLgLf.22529$Ug4.21186@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:

Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not scientific. There
are dozens of things you are not taking into consideration.
You keep using the word "scientific" without any apparent
understanding of its meaning. Why do you keep demanding "scientific
proof" when you don't even understand the science in Jones' paper? You
said so yourself.



You are putting words in my mouth and twisting their meaning.
Please Stop.

I didn't put anything in your mouth, YOU keep using the term
"scientific proof" and YOU said you don't understand the science in
Jones' paper. It's clear you have no idea what scientific proof is and
therefore nothing will ever convince you your conspiracy theory is full
of holes.




If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should have no
problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not apply. Go read his
paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his statements.
It's been done several times, but you don't understand it any more
than you understand Jones.


It's been done? Where???? I know of no physicists or engineers who
debunked Jones' paper.

Several in this thread and others like rec.aviation.homebuilt have
debunked Jones' paper. You just choose to ignore that fact.




It's only
the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the scientific
evidence
shows otherwise.
Jones is hardly "all the scientific evidence," he's just the one you
choose to believe. When someone provides an FE you say it's not
scientific. FEA is scientific in that the results are reproducible, fit
the known laws of science and have passed peer review. The fact you
don't understand FEA doesn't make it nonscientific.

Prove yourself to be normal. Take the time and go
through his paper. Here's the URL

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I have and I disagree with his findings. I won't explain why because
you won't understand, you will accuse me of being "unscientific" or
simply dismiss my responses out of hand.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



That's your excuse for the fact that you can't debunk it.

I don't have to. Several people with engineering degrees in the
various groups you have spewed your theories into have done exactly
that. Go back and reread. I said I wouldn't because you wouldn't
understand or you'd accuse me of being unscientific because that is
exactly what happened when the engineering types tried to explain things
to you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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

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