![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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? How do explain THREE collapses at near free fall speed? First time in history from fire! Where did the energy come from to pulvarize concrete and office furniture into particles of fine powder? 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.) Also, why did the government hall away and destroy the evidence before it could be properly analyzed? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dan wrote in news
![]() 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike wrote in
: 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. Mike, you are a registered PE structural engineer? Sir, in your professional, expert, experienced opinion, what caused this 47 story steel framed building to collapse? http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html Also, note these "squibs" from the SW corner http://st12.startlogic.com/ ~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
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. Actually, all that qualifies him to do is *particle* physics (his speciality is cold fusion, of all things). This qualifies him for analyzing a fantasy "building demolition" about as much as it qualifies him to design a skyscraper - in other words, not at all. Meanwhile, actual building demolition experts say people like this are full of ****. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chad Irby wrote in news:cirby-8CA32E.22050922022006
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com: Meanwhile, actual building demolition experts say people like this are full of ****. Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or structural engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Physics Professor's Peer Reviewed Paper on WTC CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS on 9/11 | Darkwing | Piloting | 15 | March 8th 06 01:38 AM |
Physics Professor's Peer Reviewed Paper on WTC CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS on 9/11 | TRUTH | Piloting | 0 | February 23rd 06 01:06 AM |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |