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

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in news:98qLf.24056$Ug4.23277@dukeread12:


TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in news:golLf.23584$Ug4.4830@dukeread12:


TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in news:wUkLf.23574$Ug4.702@dukeread12:


TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in news:uIjLf.23565$Ug4.14143

@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in
news:CLgLf.22529$Ug4.21186@dukeread12:


TRUTH wrote:


Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not
scientific. There are dozens of things you are not taking
into
consideration.

You keep using the word "scientific" without any apparent
understanding of its meaning. Why do you keep demanding
"scientific proof" when you don't even understand the science

in

Jones' paper? You said so yourself.

You are putting words in my mouth and twisting their meaning.
Please Stop.

I didn't put anything in your mouth, YOU keep using the term
"scientific proof" and YOU said you don't understand the science
in Jones' paper. It's clear you have no idea what scientific

proof

is

and

therefore nothing will ever convince you your conspiracy theory

is

full of holes.

Give me a few specfic examples. Where exactly are the holes?




If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should
have no problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not
apply.
Go read his paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his
statements.

It's been done several times, but you don't understand it

any

more
than you understand Jones.

It's been done? Where???? I know of no physicists or engineers
who debunked Jones' paper.

Several in this thread and others like rec.aviation.homebuilt
have
debunked Jones' paper. You just choose to ignore that fact.

Do me the favor and point me to the thread.




It's only

the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the
scientific

evidence

shows otherwise.

Jones is hardly "all the scientific evidence," he's just
the
one you
choose to believe. When someone provides an FE you say it's
not
scientific. FEA is scientific in that the results are
reproducible, fit the known laws of science and have passed

peer

review. The fact you don't understand FEA doesn't make it
nonscientific.

Prove yourself to be normal. Take the time and go

through his paper. Here's the URL

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


I have and I disagree with his findings. I won't explain
why
because
you won't understand, you will accuse me of being

"unscientific"

or simply dismiss my responses out of hand.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


That's your excuse for the fact that you can't debunk it.

I don't have to. Several people with engineering degrees in

the

various groups you have spewed your theories into have done
exactly that. Go back and reread. I said I wouldn't because you
wouldn't understand or you'd accuse me of being unscientific
because that is exactly what happened when the engineering types
tried to explain things to you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Yeah? Where? Show me.

Go look.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Type out the thread's sunject line, and I'll find and read through

it

Start with this tread. I am not going to do it for you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




No where in this thread were Jones' 17 arguments debunked

True, but several of his arguments have been.

Look at the bright side: you have learned a squib is not a puff of
smoke, that burning jet fuel can melt steel and that jets don't fly om
diesel fuel.

Dan, U.S. Air Air Force, retired




You are not qualified to make any of those statments, and I do not
believe any of them to be true. Besides, you are using them as red
herrings to distort the fact that your case holds no water


Then again you have shown no qualifications to make any statements.
You
simply hide behind the comments by an expert in cold fusion and the
visits of Christ to America.

Quit asking about everyone else's qualifications until you show some
for
your self.



I use his statements because he's a physicist who has been giving
seminars and convincing hundreds and hundreds of people the past few
months. His expert opinion are convincing to many.


I myself knew the WTC was professionaly demolished way before I heard of
Jones. Just looking at ALL the evidence and putting it in context makes
it crystal clear.


btw, why were two of the anthrax letters sent to senators who opposed the
Patriot act? Why was the White House put on Cipro *before* those letters
were delivered?

Take a look in the mirror and admit that you have been duped by an evil
government

"Johnny Bravo" wrote in message
...

1) Why bother blowing up WTC-7 at all? Do they honestly expect
us to believe
that the government actually sat down and said at a meeting "You
know, taking
out one of America's most prominent landmarks and killing 3,000
people just
won't be enough to enrage the public. But I've got a plan, we'll
also blow up
WTC-7, an empty building that 99.999% of the people in the country
never even
heard of to ensure the outrage we need."

An excellent point, sir.

When I read the first 9/11 conspiracy theory web pages (a long time
ago, right when they started appearing), it was a fairly common
belief, that WTC-7 was the location where the "remotely controlled
planes" that hit the towers were controlled from. And that WTC-7 was
demolished to hide the fact that the building was used as a base of
operations.

Some time later, almost all of these speculations disappeared. I
always thought it was because people were asking more and more, why
the base of operations would be right next to ground zero. Wouldn't
it be more logical (and safer to people and the secret) to put it
somewhere else where it would be still hidden after the planes hit?

It may be, that the WTC-7 demolition theory just kept on going even
though the building was not considered as a base any more?

Personally I have always wondered, *how many* people would have to
know about a job of this magnitude, had it indeed been a government
job. I find it extremely unlikely, that a secret of such magnitude
could be kept by so many people.

I'm, a conspiracy buff, I always want to hear different scenarios
and not just jump into the easiest or official solution. Still I've
always thought, that these 9/11 theories are extremely hard to
believe, when you consider the magnitude of the job. And even if it
was doable, the events and the reasons behind them in these actions
do not seem logical. Especially like the collapse of WTC-7. If it
was indeed a government job, why demolish that building too?

TVirta

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:98qLf.24056$Ug4.23277@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:golLf.23584$Ug4.4830@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:wUkLf.23574$Ug4.702@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:uIjLf.23565$Ug4.14143
@dukeread12:
TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:CLgLf.22529$Ug4.21186@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:

Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not
scientific. There are dozens of things you are not taking into
consideration.
You keep using the word "scientific" without any apparent
understanding of its meaning. Why do you keep demanding
"scientific proof" when you don't even understand the science
in
Jones' paper? You said so yourself.
You are putting words in my mouth and twisting their meaning.
Please Stop.
I didn't put anything in your mouth, YOU keep using the term
"scientific proof" and YOU said you don't understand the science
in Jones' paper. It's clear you have no idea what scientific
proof
is
and
therefore nothing will ever convince you your conspiracy theory
is
full of holes.
Give me a few specfic examples. Where exactly are the holes?



If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should
have no problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not apply.
Go read his paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his
statements.
It's been done several times, but you don't understand it
any
more
than you understand Jones.
It's been done? Where???? I know of no physicists or engineers
who debunked Jones' paper.
Several in this thread and others like rec.aviation.homebuilt
have
debunked Jones' paper. You just choose to ignore that fact.
Do me the favor and point me to the thread.



It's only
the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the scientific
evidence
shows otherwise.
Jones is hardly "all the scientific evidence," he's just the
one you
choose to believe. When someone provides an FE you say it's not
scientific. FEA is scientific in that the results are
reproducible, fit the known laws of science and have passed
peer
review. The fact you don't understand FEA doesn't make it
nonscientific.

Prove yourself to be normal. Take the time and go
through his paper. Here's the URL

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

I have and I disagree with his findings. I won't explain why
because
you won't understand, you will accuse me of being
"unscientific"
or simply dismiss my responses out of hand.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

That's your excuse for the fact that you can't debunk it.
I don't have to. Several people with engineering degrees in
the
various groups you have spewed your theories into have done
exactly that. Go back and reread. I said I wouldn't because you
wouldn't understand or you'd accuse me of being unscientific
because that is exactly what happened when the engineering types
tried to explain things to you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yeah? Where? Show me.
Go look.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Type out the thread's sunject line, and I'll find and read through
it
Start with this tread. I am not going to do it for you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



No where in this thread were Jones' 17 arguments debunked
True, but several of his arguments have been.

Look at the bright side: you have learned a squib is not a puff of
smoke, that burning jet fuel can melt steel and that jets don't fly om
diesel fuel.

Dan, U.S. Air Air Force, retired



You are not qualified to make any of those statments, and I do not
believe any of them to be true. Besides, you are using them as red
herrings to distort the fact that your case holds no water

Main Entry: squib
Pronunciation: 'skwib'
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
1 a : a short humorous or satiric writing or speech
b : a short news item; especially : FILLER
2 a : a small firecracker
b : a broken firecracker in which the powder burns with a fizz
3 : a small electric or pyrotechnic device used to ignite a charge

Source: Merriam-Webster

As for knowing what jet fuel is I am far more qualified than you ever
will be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I can't take it any longer - I did it. I planned the whole thing and
with the benefit of my super secret German technology (buffered with
some the aliens have been kind enough to lend) I master-minded the
whole thing.

The actual scenario of events is as follows:

Using stealth technology I wrapped the entire WTC complex in det cord
and thermite. No one saw because I was invisible.
Using refined German technology I piloted the aircraft into the towers
from, you guessed it, my secret underground base in Antarctica.
I "pulled" down the buildings from the same base using fiber optics and
a good old fashion plunger - boom!
I then took down WTC 7 because someone at the secret base said it
couldn't be done. However, using alien technology I was able to
immediately re-wrap the building in det cord (it was easy since
everyone was looking at the flaming towers, they never saw me) and then
"pull" it down.
After that, using mind control substances and subliminal messages
(thank goodness for that fluoride in the water) I was able to make
everyone ignore logic and the available evidence. To continue the
charade, I am using the same substances and moving the "Truth" movement
forward. They are a very solid brand of useful idiotis - Stalin would
be proud.

Where's my proof - hey, I am posting on Usenet, I don't need proof.
Anyone wants to challenge me I am sure the various supports of alien
technology, secret Nazi bases and the super advanced technology the
Germans have developed will instantly spring to my defense. As well as
those that believe an organization that can't even process a medical
claims form without fouling up would be able to carry out something
like this.

And it was for the oil, oh yes a big ball of oil. I won't spill the
beans on what we did with it other to say that you'd be surprised what
a space ship can fly on. Oh, and of course because we in the secret
government agencies actually have to start and maintain wars becuase if
we don't, we get pinged on our annual reviews. So when we go after
Iran, you'll now someone has to make points with boss. Who is usually
shrouded in shadows and cigarette smoke.

So judos to the Truth Movement - you got me.

I am also available for kid's parties too - you should see the balloon
animals I can make.

Oh, almost forgot - the Pentagon thing. See we had this V12 hanging
around the underground layer (in Antarctica, of course) and it was
always getting in the way and taking up space, so we decided, let's use
this. A quick paint job, some voice synthesizer technology (if you ever
touched a penny, we can mimick you completely - seriously, why else
keep them in circulation?) and a few bits of alient goodness and voila!
Unfortunately, someone sent me an IM duing the flight and it screwed me
up so we just missed the target. There was some debate about whether to
unleash the coal dust cannon and just obliterate Washington DC, but
well, we'd have the haul the thing out and plug it in and it was
already a big day, so we're saving that.

Where's my proof you ask? It's Usenet, I don't need proof, just
strawmen and personal attacks. So if anyone doubts me then they are
blind to the facts as I presented them and are obviously social
miscreants.

Keep up the good work, TRUTH - and keep drinking the water! Tell Dr.
Jones that his checks are in the mail.

In article ,
"Toni Virta" wrote:

I'm, a conspiracy buff, I always want to hear different scenarios
and not just jump into the easiest or official solution. Still I've
always thought, that these 9/11 theories are extremely hard to
believe, when you consider the magnitude of the job. And even if it
was doable, the events and the reasons behind them in these actions
do not seem logical. Especially like the collapse of WTC-7. If it
was indeed a government job, why demolish that building too?

The thing the nuts keep skipping over is that since WTC-7 has so heavily
damaged from fire and debris, they were already talking about having to
go in and tear it down *before* it fell in on itself.

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in news:98qLf.24056$Ug4.23277@dukeread12:

Look at the bright side: you have learned a squib is not a puff of
smoke, that burning jet fuel can melt steel and that jets don't fly om
diesel fuel.

You are not qualified to make any of those statments, and I do not
believe any of them to be true.

On the other hand, a squib is *not* a puff of smoke (although squibs
*can* make puffs of smoke), burning jet fuel *can* melt quite a lot of
things, including steel (which is why they don't use structural steel in
jet engines), and jets fly on jet fuel, which is mostly kerosene, not
diesel.

Dan, by the way, *is* qualified to make those statements, most
specifically the last two. You might check the last of the newsgroups
you're cross-posting this to - most of the denizens of
rec.aviation.military have some experience in actual aviation, either in
flying, in maintaining, of in building jets.

Of all of the places to pick to say stupid things about jet aircraft,
r.a.m is one of the worst you could have picked...

On 24 Feb 2006 05:28:15 -0800, "Greg Schuler" wrote:

Where's my proof - hey, I am posting on Usenet, I don't need proof.

That's comedy gold right there.

Chad Irby wrote in news:cirby-CB1EB0.09471124022006
@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:

In article ,
"Toni Virta" wrote:

I'm, a conspiracy buff, I always want to hear different scenarios
and not just jump into the easiest or official solution. Still I've
always thought, that these 9/11 theories are extremely hard to
believe, when you consider the magnitude of the job. And even if it
was doable, the events and the reasons behind them in these actions
do not seem logical. Especially like the collapse of WTC-7. If it
was indeed a government job, why demolish that building too?

The thing the nuts keep skipping over is that since WTC-7 has so
heavily
damaged from fire and debris, they were already talking about having to
go in and tear it down *before* it fell in on itself.




From Jones' paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as
huge trusses, arranged non-symmetrically, along with some fifty-seven
perimeter columns, as indicated in the diagram below (FEMA, 2002, chapter
5; NIST, 2005).


[See This Diagram]

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h1.jpg



Diagram showing steel-column arrangement in WTC 7, view looking down on
the roof. Circled columns were possibly damaged due to debris from WTC 1
collapse, some 350 feet away (NIST, 2005) so the damage was clearly non-
symmetrical, and evidently, none of the core columns was severed by
falling debris. WTC 7 was never hit by a plane

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

From Jones' paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as
huge trusses, arranged non-symmetrically, along with some fifty-seven
perimeter columns, as indicated in the diagram below (FEMA, 2002, chapter
5; NIST, 2005).

Yes, and when the fire burned for a wile, those 24 "huge" (not that
huge, actually) columns got moderately hot, they lost enough strength to
fail.

The thing about huge building like these is that when one part fails,
the rest of the building is almost never designed to handle the
asymmetrical stresses from that failure. Knocking a skyscraper down is
easy, knocking it down *accurately* is the hard part.