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

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.