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

Mike wrote in
news
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:50:37 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

Mike wrote in
m:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:36:03 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

Those facta have no bearing on this at all.

The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.

The idea that the Towers could collapse at near free fall speed from
fire is absurd.

Explain why. After the initial accelleration of the upper floors,
the forces applied on the lower floors would be much greater than
they were designed for. Thus, the lower portion of the building
would provide little resistance and allow for a quick collapse.

How did the 47 MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS in the Towers severe? And HOW
did they ALL severe at the SAME TIME?


Fact: A large number of the exterior columns were severed by the
impact.
Fact: Fire (heat) weakens steel even without the steel melting and
becoing fluid.
Fact: The columns did not all fail at the same time. The south
tower's top floors tilted proir to collapse. The north tower's
interior columns failed first. Several of the columns were severed
by the impact of the planes. The loads that were no longer being
supported by the severed columns were transferred to other columns.
Those columns were then weakened by fire. When the stress became
too great for the just one of the remianing columns, it failed.
This transferred more load to the remaining columns causing them to
become overstressed one by one in rapid succession. This caused the
top portion of the building to begin to drop onto the lower portion
and subsequently "pancake" the lower floors.


..................
Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and Co Author of “Why Buildings Fall
Down”

Levy has stated in the past that fire brought down the WTC buildings
on 9/11. But it is interesting that he also made a public statement
saying the WTC collapses resembled controlled demolition. (Matthys
Levy was/is a representative for Weidlinger Associates; a company
hired by WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein to help prove to his
insurers that the failures of the Towers were the result of two
separate terrorist attacks, and therefore allow Silverstein to double
his insurance payout.)

The collapse can certainly resemble a controlled demolition, without
actually being a controlled demolition. The WTC suffered from a
progressive collapse. Controlled demolitions also use progressive
collapse to bring down buildings. Therefore the statement that "the
WTC collapses resembled controlled demolition" really isn't all that
interesting.


Well, it looks like controlled demolitions, all the facts easily support
controlled demolitions, the government provided no real investigation, so
why believe that it wasn't controlled demolitions?




"It was the fire ... causing the failure of the steel columns and that
caused the collapse"
http://wcbs880.com/topstories/topsto...113150328.html

"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a
building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because
they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's
exactly what it looked like and that's what happened."
Video: www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html
..................
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in controlled demolitions,
they do not cause the failure of all of the columns simultaneously.
The charges are triggered with time delays to be certain that the
building falls in the desired location.


So, the structural engineer who billionare Larry Silverstein hired is
wrong, and you are right. I see.





Mike, PLEASE give me your professional opinion on WTC 7. Be sure to
watch all the video clips he

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

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

So, the structural engineer who billionare Larry Silverstein hired is
wrong, and you are right. I see.

Actually, Silverstein (the guy who leased the WTC) hired an engineer o
show that the failure of the buildings was due to the attacks, and not
due to faulty construction (that was important to his insurance claims
for the buildings).

"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a
building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because
they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's
exactly what it looked like and that's what happened."
Video: www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html
..................
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in controlled demolitions,
they do not cause the failure of all of the columns simultaneously.
The charges are triggered with time delays to be certain that the
building falls in the desired location.


So, the structural engineer who billionare Larry Silverstein hired is
wrong, and you are right. I see.


As you should see. The engineer hired by Larry Silverman is wrong.
See these videos of a controlled demolitions.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com...t/jlhudson.mpg
http://www.controlled-demolition.com...t/kingdome.mpg
Clearly in these videos, the charges are not set off simultaneously,
but rather incrementally in order to get the building to fall in the
desired location.

TRUTH wrote:

...

Well, it looks like controlled demolitions, all the facts easily support
controlled demolitions, the government provided no real investigation, so
why believe that it wasn't controlled demolitions?


It does NOT look like a controlled demolition. No now who has
seen fooptage of both and paid attention would think they
looked like each other.

The WTC towers collapsed from the top down, controlled demolitions
collapse from the bottom up.

Aside from the fact that it does NOT look a controlled demolition,
the absence of any witnesses who saw preparations for demolition
is ANOTHER good reason to not believe it. Consider, for example,
that for a controlled demolition much the structural steel is cut
through
at the point where the explosives are placed so that the explosives
will reliably finish severing them.

--

FF

wrote in
ups.com:


TRUTH wrote:

...

Well, it looks like controlled demolitions, all the facts easily
support controlled demolitions, the government provided no real
investigation, so why believe that it wasn't controlled demolitions?


It does NOT look like a controlled demolition. No now who has
seen fooptage of both and paid attention would think they
looked like each other.

The WTC towers collapsed from the top down, controlled demolitions
collapse from the bottom up.

Aside from the fact that it does NOT look a controlled demolition,
the absence of any witnesses who saw preparations for demolition
is ANOTHER good reason to not believe it. Consider, for example,
that for a controlled demolition much the structural steel is cut
through
at the point where the explosives are placed so that the explosives
will reliably finish severing them.



Sorry, but it does. Numerous engineering have said that the collapses
resemble controlled demolitions. And that includes the strucural engineer
hired by the WTC leaseholder's insurance company:

Video link of him saying it is he
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

TRUTH wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:

TRUTH wrote:
...

Well, it looks like controlled demolitions, all the facts easily
support controlled demolitions, the government provided no real
investigation, so why believe that it wasn't controlled demolitions?

It does NOT look like a controlled demolition. No now who has
seen fooptage of both and paid attention would think they
looked like each other.

The WTC towers collapsed from the top down, controlled demolitions
collapse from the bottom up.

Aside from the fact that it does NOT look a controlled demolition,
the absence of any witnesses who saw preparations for demolition
is ANOTHER good reason to not believe it. Consider, for example,
that for a controlled demolition much the structural steel is cut
through
at the point where the explosives are placed so that the explosives
will reliably finish severing them.



Sorry, but it does. Numerous engineering have said that the collapses
resemble controlled demolitions. And that includes the strucural engineer
hired by the WTC leaseholder's insurance company:

Video link of him saying it is he
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

"Resembled" doesn't mean it was, OK? The fact remains there is NO
proof of "controlled demolition" of WTC1 or WTC2 and it's time you
admitted it. All you have is people telling you it looked like it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In message , TRUTH
writes
wrote in
oups.com:


TRUTH wrote:

...

Well, it looks like controlled demolitions, all the facts easily
support controlled demolitions, the government provided no real
investigation, so why believe that it wasn't controlled demolitions?


It does NOT look like a controlled demolition. No now who has
seen fooptage of both and paid attention would think they
looked like each other.

The WTC towers collapsed from the top down, controlled demolitions
collapse from the bottom up.

Aside from the fact that it does NOT look a controlled demolition,
the absence of any witnesses who saw preparations for demolition
is ANOTHER good reason to not believe it. Consider, for example,
that for a controlled demolition much the structural steel is cut
through
at the point where the explosives are placed so that the explosives
will reliably finish severing them.



Sorry, but it does. Numerous engineering have said that the collapses
resemble controlled demolitions. And that includes the strucural engineer
hired by the WTC leaseholder's insurance company:

My dad resembled his cousin Bob. Wasn't him, though. Two separate people
with similar faces.

Resemble \= is
Similar \= same

Get a grip (no, not on that, you'll go even more blind than you are
already)

Video link of him saying it is he
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

TRUTH wrote:

Sorry, but it does. Numerous engineering have said that the collapses
resemble controlled demolitions. And that includes the strucural engineer
hired by the WTC leaseholder's insurance company:


I resemble Jesus Christ, and Osama - I have the same body parts and same
general appearance. Resemble doesn't mean I'm either one.

But - didn't you say you were leaving?