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

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in news:cirby-82BB57.22102722022006
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Okay, so I make a little mistake

...like claiming a paper is peer reviewed, like claiming pretty much
everything you've said in this thread (including screwing up the title
of the thread itself)?

How about reading the paper for yourself?

I did. He's full of ****.

And (here's the kicker) I really understand his claims, which you don't.

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



TRUTH wrote:


Jones does not need to be a building engineer. He's a physicist and
is therefore qualified to determine if the government's version
defies physics. And since his paper, and the 150 people in st911.org,
use science, and not kooky proofless boxcutter nonsense, they can see
that the WTC was taken down by controled demolitions. So can anyone
else who looks at the information I posted.


Not really. He is lately an expert in Cold Fusion and Christ's visit
to America.

His arguments are not particularly plausible or convincing.

His arguments are based on scientific principles. They do not have to be
convincing, since scientific laws cannot be changed, such as the Law of
Increasing Entropy. Are you an engineer or physicist?

Mathematics but I have a pretty good background in Physics.

How do explain THREE collapses at near free fall speed? First time in
history from fire!


Two very large airplanes into buildings do have an effect.

Where did the energy come from to pulvarize concrete and office furniture
into particles of fine powder?

Lots of kinetic and thermal energy.

Where did the force come to *evaporate* 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.)

As I said lots of energy available.

Also, why did the government hall away and destroy the evidence before it
could be properly analyzed?

There was some interest in trying to clean up the area. Should they
have closed off a fair part of the island for a couple of years. As I
said the man is not an expert in anything that connects and his claims
are neither plausible or convincing.

Chad Irby wrote in
:

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in
news:cirby-82BB57.22102722022006 @news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Okay, so I make a little mistake

...like claiming a paper is peer reviewed, like claiming pretty
much everything you've said in this thread (including screwing up
the title of the thread itself)?

How about reading the paper for yourself?

I did. He's full of ****.

And (here's the kicker) I really understand his claims, which you
don't.



Fine, prove it. Debunk his paper and explain WHY his evidence does not
apply. And be specific. No silly childish nonsense

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in
:



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



TRUTH wrote:


Jones does not need to be a building engineer. He's a physicist and
is therefore qualified to determine if the government's version
defies physics. And since his paper, and the 150 people in
st911.org, use science, and not kooky proofless boxcutter nonsense,
they can see that the WTC was taken down by controled demolitions.
So can anyone else who looks at the information I posted.


Not really. He is lately an expert in Cold Fusion and Christ's visit
to America.

His arguments are not particularly plausible or convincing.

His arguments are based on scientific principles. They do not have to
be convincing, since scientific laws cannot be changed, such as the
Law of Increasing Entropy. Are you an engineer or physicist?

Mathematics but I have a pretty good background in Physics.


Okay.




How do explain THREE collapses at near free fall speed? First time in
history from fire!


Two very large airplanes into buildings do have an effect.


And what about WTC 7?


Where did the energy come from to pulvarize concrete and office
furniture into particles of fine powder?

Lots of kinetic and thermal energy.



Where did that kinetic and thermal energy come from? Do you know of any
experiments performed that show that it could happen?




Where did the force come to *evaporate* 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.)

As I said lots of energy available.


See above



Also, why did the government hall away and destroy the evidence
before it could be properly analyzed?

There was some interest in trying to clean up the area. Should they
have closed off a fair part of the island for a couple of years. As I
said the man is not an expert in anything that connects and his claims
are neither plausible or convincing.


They evidence was hauled away and DESTROYED. Please explain this.

TRUTH wrote:

Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or structural
engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false

Jones claims that the presence of black smoke means the fire
temperatures could not have exceeded 650 C.

The presence of black smoke merely indicates that a low yield fire was
burning *somewhere*, but this is not evidence of its distribution or
homogeneity. In other words, it is not sufficient evidence that
demonstrates the complete absence of any other, possibly hotter, fires
anywhere. Since we know that more than one fire can exist with a
structure at a time and since the performance levels of these fires
aren't predicatedby the smoke presence of a low order fire, this
evidence does not exclude hotter fires, so Jone's baseline assumption
is invalid. Since fire temperature is a linchpin, his entire case
unravels.

Jone's error was a causality confusion of "absence of evidence" with
"evidence of absence". Interestingly, the last (in)famous physicists
who made this same logical error were Fleschman & Pons. One would have
expected that Jones, being also into Cold Fusion, would have been smart
enough to have learned from their mistake. Because he repeats the same
known causality error, he deserves nothing less than professional
contempt..


-hh

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?

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.


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.


Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?

Heat alone can do that. Metal DOES boil and become a gas at high
enough temperatures.

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."




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

"-hh" wrote in
ups.com:


TRUTH wrote:
Chad Irby wrote:
TRUTH wrote:

How about reading the paper for yourself?

I did. He's full of ****.

And (here's the kicker) I really understand his claims, which you
don't.

Fine, prove it.

Don't have to: that's what the Peer Review process does.

Since you've recanted your lie about the paper already being Peer
Reviewed, your credibility on the entire matter is zero.


But of course, what you're really after is to see how many responses
you can get to your troll in some period of time to win a bet at your
College Fraternity.

Bye-bye, pledge.





What a wimpy copout.

"-hh" wrote in
oups.com:

TRUTH wrote:

Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or structural
engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false

Jones claims that the presence of black smoke means the fire
temperatures could not have exceeded 650 C.


That is correct. btw, what is your expertise and education, may I ask.




The presence of black smoke merely indicates that a low yield fire was
burning *somewhere*, but this is not evidence of its distribution or
homogeneity. In other words, it is not sufficient evidence that
demonstrates the complete absence of any other, possibly hotter, fires
anywhere. Since we know that more than one fire can exist with a
structure at a time and since the performance levels of these fires
aren't predicatedby the smoke presence of a low order fire, this
evidence does not exclude hotter fires, so Jone's baseline assumption
is invalid. Since fire temperature is a linchpin, his entire case
unravels.



That is pure nonsense! One cannot say, "For the Towers to have collapsed
from fire, the fire must have been hotter somewhere. Therefore the fire
WAS hottter somewhere." Come on! Are you an engineer or physicist, btw?

Where is the proof of that hotter fire?

There is no evidence showing hotter fires in other areas. One cannot
simply assume that there was.

And if the fires were so hot, how were the firefighters able to get up to
the impact area without being incinerated?

Besides, where's the logical reasoning explaining how that fire got so
hot that it simultaneously severed 47 massive steel columns?? (That's 47
columns in each Tower.)




Jone's error was a causality confusion of "absence of evidence" with
"evidence of absence". Interestingly, the last (in)famous physicists
who made this same logical error were Fleschman & Pons. One would have
expected that Jones, being also into Cold Fusion, would have been smart
enough to have learned from their mistake. Because he repeats the same
known causality error, he deserves nothing less than professional
contempt..


-hh


Your statements are total nonsense. You didn't debunk any of the
evidence. Jones' statements about the fire is more suggestive evidence
that physical evidence . Besides, you're treating it lile it's all there
is. How about explaining the rest of that paper?

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?




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.




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. There's millions of other
variables.

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




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?




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.





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

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:20 GMT, TRUTH wrote:


His arguments are based on scientific principles. They do not have to be
convincing, since scientific laws cannot be changed, such as the Law of
Increasing Entropy. Are you an engineer or physicist?

Yes, I am a structural engineer and registered PE.

How do explain THREE collapses at near free fall speed? First time in
history from fire!

It is called progressive collapse. This is when a smaller less
significant failure causes an overall greater failure.

Where did the energy come from to pulvarize concrete and office furniture
into particles of fine powder?

The concrete and other materials had a large amounts of potential
energy stored when they were raised to a higher elevation in the
building. BTW, you don't need to be an engineer to know this, you
need to have not slept through 6th grade science class.

Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?

Steel doesn't evaporate. ASCE (an independent non-government
organization) determined from analysis that "The thinning of the steel
occurred by a high temperature corrosion due to a combination of
oxidation and sulfidation.

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.)

Fire. BTW it can be consistant with many things.

Also, why did the government hall away and destroy the evidence before it
could be properly analyzed?

See above about ASCE analyzing the steel.