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

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.

"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?

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.

"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:

"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?




Thermal energy comes from fires. The kinetic energy comes from dropping
large parts of buildings. It is transferred when the building pieces
hit something and stop.



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.


They wanted to be able to use that part of Manhattan sometime in this
decade.

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

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

TRUTH wrote:
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?

Evasion noted.



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.


Do the math, the formula is D = 16T^2



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.

That's precisely what formulae are for. I assume you took some math
and science in school. What do you think they were trying to teach you?

Actually using simple formulae is exactly how it's done. It's done
repeatedly or plugged into another formula or both. Calculus simplifies
this, computers make it even easier. No matter how big the equation is
it is made up of smaller parts that can be worked into or out of the
picture. You have repeatedly told us you have no science background so
don't tell us who do how it is done. What is "absurd and illogical" is
your insisting you know better when you also say you don't.

Did you know Ke (kinetic energy)= 1/2mv^2 is an application of F = ma?


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

The 21 story Mexico City building did. No matter how many times you
try to ignore it it did collapse that way. I haven't looked at every
single building collapse in history, neither have you, so I can't say
there are other examples or not.


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?

Jet fuel is NOT diesel. It is closer to kerosene. What keeps jet
engines from melting is selection of materials and bypass air. Jet fuel
CAN burn steel given enough oxygen and that's what happened. It is more
than apparent you don't know what "force" means since you don't use it
correctly here.





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.

I will say it again: there were fires from broken gas lines. Remember
how NYFD had to put them out before major excavation could begin?





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

The article you cite is flat out wrong as is your suggestion the
salvage was deliberately destroyed before being properly analyzed. The
salvage was taken to Fresh Kills where each piece was forensically
examined before a decision was made to release or not. There is not
enough space nor requirement to keep every piece so that which has no
probative value was sold off.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote in news:IpjLf.23563$Ug4.13024@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
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?

Evasion noted.



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.


Do the math, the formula is D = 16T^2



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.

That's precisely what formulae are for. I assume you took some math
and science in school. What do you think they were trying to teach
you?

Actually using simple formulae is exactly how it's done. It's done
repeatedly or plugged into another formula or both. Calculus
simplifies this, computers make it even easier. No matter how big the
equation is it is made up of smaller parts that can be worked into or
out of the picture. You have repeatedly told us you have no science
background so don't tell us who do how it is done. What is "absurd and
illogical" is your insisting you know better when you also say you
don't.



Actually, no it's not. When there are unknowns, they must also be taken
into acount. In you believe otherwise, then your education is faulty.





Did you know Ke (kinetic energy)= 1/2mv^2 is an application of F = ma?


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

The 21 story Mexico City building did. No matter how many times you
try to ignore it it did collapse that way. I haven't looked at every
single building collapse in history, neither have you, so I can't say
there are other examples or not.


That building was no more than 3 stories tall. Anyone with eyes can see
that. That tiny building did NOT pulvarise to dust.

NO STEEL FRAMED HI RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPES FROM FIRE PERIOD!

YOU are the one ignoring the evidence. So stop projecting it onto me.





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?

Jet fuel is NOT diesel. It is closer to kerosene. What keeps jet
engines from melting is selection of materials and bypass air. Jet
fuel CAN burn steel given enough oxygen and that's what happened. It
is more than apparent you don't know what "force" means since you
don't use it correctly here.


Instead of childishly insulting me, how about admitting that burning jet
fuel does not get hot enough to melt 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.

I will say it again: there were fires from broken gas lines.
Remember
how NYFD had to put them out before major excavation could begin?



Okay, if that case, show me some information proving that gas fires can
get hot enough to melt steel.

Also, explain how the gas fires got hot enough to cause 47 steel columns
to simultaniously sever.




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

The article you cite is flat out wrong as is your suggestion the
salvage was deliberately destroyed before being properly analyzed. The
salvage was taken to Fresh Kills where each piece was forensically
examined before a decision was made to release or not. There is not
enough space nor requirement to keep every piece so that which has no
probative value was sold off.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Oh really. Show me just one article from a reputable source verifying
that.

NOTE: Fire Engineering is not a "newsstand" magazine. It is a
professional trade journal, for fire houses. I could assure you, the
article is 100% correct.

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:IpjLf.23563$Ug4.13024@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
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?

Evasion noted.


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.

Do the math, the formula is D = 16T^2


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.
That's precisely what formulae are for. I assume you took some math
and science in school. What do you think they were trying to teach
you?

Actually using simple formulae is exactly how it's done. It's done
repeatedly or plugged into another formula or both. Calculus
simplifies this, computers make it even easier. No matter how big the
equation is it is made up of smaller parts that can be worked into or
out of the picture. You have repeatedly told us you have no science
background so don't tell us who do how it is done. What is "absurd and
illogical" is your insisting you know better when you also say you
don't.



Actually, no it's not. When there are unknowns, they must also be taken
into acount. In you believe otherwise, then your education is faulty.


What do you think equations are for? Of course they are to solve for
unknowns. I never said otherwise. Apparently you are as weak on
communication as you are on science and math.





Did you know Ke (kinetic energy)= 1/2mv^2 is an application of F = ma?

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

The 21 story Mexico City building did. No matter how many times you
try to ignore it it did collapse that way. I haven't looked at every
single building collapse in history, neither have you, so I can't say
there are other examples or not.


That building was no more than 3 stories tall.

It was 21 stories before collapse.

Anyone with eyes can see
that. That tiny building did NOT pulvarise to dust.

Neither did WTC.


NO STEEL FRAMED HI RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPES FROM FIRE PERIOD!

Prove it.

YOU are the one ignoring the evidence. So stop projecting it onto me.


No, you are altering the test here. You never specified collapse due
to fire until now.





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?
Jet fuel is NOT diesel. It is closer to kerosene. What keeps jet
engines from melting is selection of materials and bypass air. Jet
fuel CAN burn steel given enough oxygen and that's what happened. It
is more than apparent you don't know what "force" means since you
don't use it correctly here.


Instead of childishly insulting me, how about admitting that burning jet
fuel does not get hot enough to melt steel?

I might have had it been true. Besides, I have seen jet fuel/oxygen
burn through steel. It's all a mater of how it's burned. Let me try an
analogy you might be able to understand: a Coleman™ stove. If you pour
the fuel on the ground and light it you get a relatively cool flame. Now
run it through your stove. The gas generator is heated by the burner.
The gas generator turns the liquid fuel into a gas. The gas form burns
much hotter than the liquid form. The same was true at WTC, initially
the fire was relatively cool until it started sucking air in from
outside at a high rate, imagine a chimney effect, giving the fire a
higher oxygen burn rate. This is essentially a variation of how a jet
engine works. The exhaust gas temperatures are much higher than simple
burning liquid jet fuel. Now imagine another analogy: a kerosene lamp.
When you light the wick you get a low, dim flame. Put the chimney back
and the air around the flame heats up. This sucks in more air at a
higher rate than before which makes the flame burn hotter and brighter.

Now the same jet fuel that can burn hot enough to melt steel can also
burn cool enough to use in a cigarette lighter. Now you know where I
used to get free lighter fluid many moons ago when I smoked.


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.
I will say it again: there were fires from broken gas lines.
Remember
how NYFD had to put them out before major excavation could begin?



Okay, if that case, show me some information proving that gas fires can
get hot enough to melt steel.

See above. Besides have you ever heard of oxygen/acetylene welding?
It melts steel. Acetylene is a hydrocarbon fairly close to natural gas
in energy. Know what the difference between an oxygen/acetylene welding
torch and an oxygen/acetylene cutting torch is? Without going into
detail the cutting torch burns more efficiently generating a higher
temperature which cuts the steel by vapourising it.

Also, explain how the gas fires got hot enough to cause 47 steel columns
to simultaniously sever.

I never said it did. You asked about the hot steel AFTER the
collapse, remember? See above.



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
The article you cite is flat out wrong as is your suggestion the
salvage was deliberately destroyed before being properly analyzed. The
salvage was taken to Fresh Kills where each piece was forensically
examined before a decision was made to release or not. There is not
enough space nor requirement to keep every piece so that which has no
probative value was sold off.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Oh really. Show me just one article from a reputable source verifying
that.

Just as soon as you start citing reputable sources for your claims.

NOTE: Fire Engineering is not a "newsstand" magazine. It is a
professional trade journal, for fire houses. I could assure you, the
article is 100% correct.

Then your assurance would be wrong. You also assured us Jones' paper
was peer reviewed so your assurances mean nothing to me. I used to be a
gunsmith and I found errors in trade journals.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired