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

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:RbkLf.23571$Ug4.14981@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
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

No squibs or other explosive devices are shown.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




The links above were not meant for you. I pasted your linked in the other
post where you asked me to do you the favor of doing so

Oh, I wasn't supposed to look?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote in news:2_kLf.23575$Ug4.17626@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:RbkLf.23571$Ug4.14981@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
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

No squibs or other explosive devices are shown.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




Go visit an eye doctor

I suggest the same for you. What is shown is horizontal puffs of
smoke below the falling floors. They are puffs of smoke, not squibs.
Squibs and explosive devices are solid devices that explode when
triggered not puffs of smoke.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




You're the first person I've heard to say that. Either way, that doesn't
negate the info

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:45:29 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

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?

To technically answer your question, I am a Registered Professional
Engineer in the State of Florida proficient in building structural
design.



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

Note that the building was constructed over an existing electrical
substation. This resulted in numerous transfer beams and columns that
are critical to the overall stability of the structure. When the
fires started in the building and were fueled by the numerous fuel
storage tanks in the lower portion of the building, these critical
columns were weakened. At some point in time, a column failed, the
loads were then carried by other (fire weakened) columns until the
next columnn failed and so on. The fire was burning for hours. Once
the first column fails, the others fail in quick succession. Note
that the east mechanical penthouse disappears first, then 5 seconds
later, the west mechanical penthouse collapses into the building, and
about 3 seconds later, the entire building begins to collapse. Note
that it buckles inward and begins to drop first at the location
between the 2 penthouses. It is a classic progressive collapse.

Also, note these "squibs" from the SW corner
http://st12.startlogic.com/
~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:6DkLf.23572$Ug4.8179@dukeread12:

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.


You call me weak? You're the one using not looking at all the data


Stop being so sensitive, lots of people are poor communicators and
don't understand logic, math or science.





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.



When I find the link, I will provide it. (Despite the fact that you
haven't provided ANY evidence of your own, other than the Mexico Ciy
collapse that was not caused by fire.)



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.



Take a look at the "FACTS" post that I posted a number of times. Fire has
NEVER caused a steel framed building to completely collapse. And
definitely not straight down, at near free fall speed, with accompanying
squibs and all!




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.


Please provide a link where all that information can be verified by a
physicist, or similar expert. You might know about NORAD, but your USAF
background does not cover steel melting fires. Sorry.



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.


How exactly does all this apply to the WTC?

I answered your question how jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt
steel. Please try to stay focused.




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.



I asked you numerous times how the 47 massive steel columns got severed.
In addition, how they got severed simultaneuosly, in both towers. I am
still waiting for that answer.

OK, try this on for size: they didn't. They didn't need to to cause
the collapse as it happened.


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.


If you don't consider Fire Engineering a reputable source, then your
thinking is not clear and there's nothing more I can do for you. Sorry

I never said it wasn't. I just said the article was wrong. You have
yet to provide reputable sources for any of your other 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

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:2_kLf.23575$Ug4.17626@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:RbkLf.23571$Ug4.14981@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
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

No squibs or other explosive devices are shown.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Go visit an eye doctor
I suggest the same for you. What is shown is horizontal puffs of
smoke below the falling floors. They are puffs of smoke, not squibs.
Squibs and explosive devices are solid devices that explode when
triggered not puffs of smoke.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




You're the first person I've heard to say that. Either way, that doesn't
negate the info

Sure it does. Saying the puffs of smoke prove an explosive device
went off is like saying mushroom clouds prove an atomic device was
exploded. I have seen puffs of smoke generated many ways and I have seen
huge mushroom clouds generated by non atomic methods. I have also seen
squibs fired with no visible smoke.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Mike wrote in
news
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:45:29 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

Mike wrote in
m:

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?

To technically answer your question, I am a Registered Professional
Engineer in the State of Florida proficient in building structural
design.



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

Note that the building was constructed over an existing electrical
substation. This resulted in numerous transfer beams and columns that
are critical to the overall stability of the structure. When the
fires started in the building and were fueled by the numerous fuel
storage tanks in the lower portion of the building, these critical
columns were weakened. At some point in time, a column failed, the
loads were then carried by other (fire weakened) columns until the
next columnn failed and so on. The fire was burning for hours. Once
the first column fails, the others fail in quick succession. Note
that the east mechanical penthouse disappears first, then 5 seconds
later, the west mechanical penthouse collapses into the building, and
about 3 seconds later, the entire building begins to collapse. Note
that it buckles inward and begins to drop first at the location
between the 2 penthouses. It is a classic progressive collapse.

Also, note these "squibs" from the SW corner
http://st12.startlogic.com/
~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm







So, what you're saying is that never before in world history has a steel
framed skyscraper completely collapsed from fire, but on 9/11 it happened
three times? And all three just happened to resemble controlled
demolitions? Including near free fall, squibs, fine powder, etc?


How could this happen on 9/11 three times, and never before or after 9/11?

Why did NIST change the data for their computer simulations?

Why did they not analyse the structural behavior of the buildings after the
onset of collapse inituation?

Why did they make the claim that collapse initiation would "inevitably"
lead to global collapse, when it never happened before in history?

How could it be from fire when they resemble controlled demolitions?

What about the FDNY statements about flashes and explosions that they said
they thought were controlled demolition?

How could burning jet fuel simultaneously sever 47 massive support columns
in each of the Towers? If the fire was that hot, shouldn't it have
incinerated all human beings in the area? (There were living people up
there.)


Please take a look at Dr Jones' paper and try to explain the 17 arguments
he makes. If you're a registered PE, you should have no trouble. I would
really appreciate it. Thanks...

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

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.

Dan wrote in news:2jlLf.23581$Ug4.9378@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:6DkLf.23572$Ug4.8179@dukeread12:

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.


You call me weak? You're the one using not looking at all the data


Stop being so sensitive, lots of people are poor communicators and
don't understand logic, math or science.



Stop projecting how you feel about yourself onto me.







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.



When I find the link, I will provide it. (Despite the fact that you
haven't provided ANY evidence of your own, other than the Mexico Ciy
collapse that was not caused by fire.)



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.



Take a look at the "FACTS" post that I posted a number of times. Fire
has NEVER caused a steel framed building to completely collapse. And
definitely not straight down, at near free fall speed, with
accompanying squibs and all!




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.


Please provide a link where all that information can be verified by a
physicist, or similar expert. You might know about NORAD, but your
USAF background does not cover steel melting fires. Sorry.



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.


How exactly does all this apply to the WTC?

I answered your question how jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt
steel. Please try to stay focused.



Sorry, but you are delusional. Am I supposed to believe a retired USAF
pilot over every scientist on the planet?







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.



I asked you numerous times how the 47 massive steel columns got
severed. In addition, how they got severed simultaneuosly, in both
towers. I am still waiting for that answer.

OK, try this on for size: they didn't. They didn't need to to cause
the collapse as it happened.


This structural engineer proves you wrong:



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.)

“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








Now, stay focused and answer my question.






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.


If you don't consider Fire Engineering a reputable source, then your
thinking is not clear and there's nothing more I can do for you.
Sorry

I never said it wasn't. I just said the article was wrong. You have
yet to provide reputable sources for any of your other claims.



Oh I see.... so the Journal is a reputable source, but an article from
it's own Editor in Chief is not. Ummm, are you drinking??










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

Dan wrote in news:HslLf.23585$Ug4.9491@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:2_kLf.23575$Ug4.17626@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:RbkLf.23571$Ug4.14981@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
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

No squibs or other explosive devices are shown.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Go visit an eye doctor
I suggest the same for you. What is shown is horizontal puffs of
smoke below the falling floors. They are puffs of smoke, not squibs.
Squibs and explosive devices are solid devices that explode when
triggered not puffs of smoke.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




You're the first person I've heard to say that. Either way, that
doesn't negate the info

Sure it does. Saying the puffs of smoke prove an explosive device
went off is like saying mushroom clouds prove an atomic device was
exploded. I have seen puffs of smoke generated many ways and I have
seen huge mushroom clouds generated by non atomic methods. I have also
seen squibs fired with no visible smoke.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




You need to look at all the evidence and consider it all. You are not
doing that. You are in denial

Truth,

According to BYU's website, it has not been properly submitted yet.


One has to wonder why that might be...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)