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

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:38:37 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on
the entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
happened to include terrorist attack insurance

Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?


Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
before 9/11. Also, Bush's brother Marvin was one of the directors in
charge of WTC security.

Um, doesn't lack of power make drilling harder? And just how does one
person manage such a vast security breach? This is taking place in the
center of an area that has one of the highest population densities on the
planet. Don't you think that someone might have noticed something? How many
people do you think live and work near there anyway???

There is a couple of massive flaws in the WTC-7 preset demolition theory.

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."

2) Why set up a building to be demolished if no plane is going to hit it? There
is no way that they knew in advance that large pieces of debris would hit WTC-7
and start a fire that burned uncontrolled for half a day. What would have been
the explanation if the building was blown up and it hadn't suffered any
significant damage? None of the surrounding buildings was blown up after
suffering no significant damage and none of them were found with tons of preset
explosives.

The only possible logical explanation would be that WTC-7 was set for
demoltion that very day, after the planes hit. Hundreds of highly trained
demolitons specialists snuck tons of explosives into a smoke filled burning
building and executed a controlled demolition in 7 hours, in the midst of one of
the most intensive disaster recovery procedures ever mounted in the US. Not
only did they manage this incredible feat completely undetected, not one of the
hundreds of people involved ever talked about it. And this was done for
absolutely no reason at all, see #1 above.

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.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:


"TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
landing.


If TRUTH visited Austria, he would probably be imprisoned for his
Holocaust beliefs.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:


"TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
landing.


If TRUTH visited Austria, he would probably be imprisoned for his
Holocaust beliefs.

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:AzjLf.23564$Ug4.7379@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:f%fLf.22178$Ug4.21685@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote in

FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on
the
entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
happened to include terrorist attack insurance
Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you
know how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
before
9/11.
Obviously you don't. Take a look at any major controlled
demolition.
It takes weeks of preparation that includes removal of walls,
windows and structural members as well as making cuts in steel
supports, drilling of holes and cutting rebar in concrete members,
installing charges and det cord etc. Very little of which can be
done without all kinds of people noticing. How come no one noticed
the debris being hauled away before 9-11? Det cord is orange or
bright red and about
3/8"
in diameter and no one noticed many hundreds of yards of this stuff
strung about? You keep referring to squibs, do you know what they
are
or
the difference between a squib and a shaped charge?

As for the "puffs of smoke" jetting out from windows below the
falling floors they would be from windows being blown out by air
driven by the mass of falling floors. Same with debris going
horizontal.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Yes it does take weeks. Bu that fact does not debunk the evidence.
OK, then answer the rest of what I said. How come no one noticed
the
removed walls, the debris being carted off, the exposed supports, the
hundreds of yards of det cord, the prepped structural members etc? At
the very least everyone who had access to the underground parking lots
would have noticed the precut supports.


I have no idea. Any idea would be pure speculation, and would not prove
anything.



Jones' refuted the "air-expulsion due to floors collapsing" theory of
the squibs. See his paper for the details.
I have and he doesn't know what he is talking about. Squibs are
more
commonly used for special effects, ejection seats and small jobs like
that.


You might not understand what he means by squibs. Squibs are the puffs of
smoke caused by the controlled charges. Take a look at the videos on
www.implosionworld.com and compare them.


Have you seen the squibs yourself? There are video clips at the
bottom of this page:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
OK, save me the trouble of watching all the clips and tell me which
video shows these "squibs." I am having trouble visualizing how squibs
would be used in place of shaped charges and kickers.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




Okay...

WTC 7 (NOT hit by an airplane):
http://tinyurl.com/eygeh

WTC 7 has been explained satisfactorily elsewhere in this thread.


North Tower Squibs:
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2...s-1-marked.avi

South Tower Squibs:
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2...s-1-marked.avi

Neither video plays for me. Do they show the actual explosive devices
or just the puffs of smoke? If it's the latter they don't provide proof
of explosives.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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

Dan wrote in news:vTkLf.23573$Ug4.4522@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:AzjLf.23564$Ug4.7379@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:f%fLf.22178$Ug4.21685@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote in

FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease
on
the
entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
happened to include terrorist attack insurance
Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives
that needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do
you know how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
before
9/11.
Obviously you don't. Take a look at any major controlled
demolition.
It takes weeks of preparation that includes removal of walls,
windows and structural members as well as making cuts in steel
supports, drilling of holes and cutting rebar in concrete members,
installing charges and det cord etc. Very little of which can be
done without all kinds of people noticing. How come no one noticed
the debris being hauled away before 9-11? Det cord is orange or
bright red and about
3/8"
in diameter and no one noticed many hundreds of yards of this
stuff strung about? You keep referring to squibs, do you know what
they are
or
the difference between a squib and a shaped charge?

As for the "puffs of smoke" jetting out from windows below
the
falling floors they would be from windows being blown out by air
driven by the mass of falling floors. Same with debris going
horizontal.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Yes it does take weeks. Bu that fact does not debunk the evidence.
OK, then answer the rest of what I said. How come no one noticed
the
removed walls, the debris being carted off, the exposed supports,
the hundreds of yards of det cord, the prepped structural members
etc? At the very least everyone who had access to the underground
parking lots would have noticed the precut supports.


I have no idea. Any idea would be pure speculation, and would not
prove anything.



Jones' refuted the "air-expulsion due to floors collapsing" theory
of the squibs. See his paper for the details.
I have and he doesn't know what he is talking about. Squibs are
more
commonly used for special effects, ejection seats and small jobs
like that.


You might not understand what he means by squibs. Squibs are the
puffs of smoke caused by the controlled charges. Take a look at the
videos on www.implosionworld.com and compare them.


Have you seen the squibs yourself? There are video clips at the
bottom of this page:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
OK, save me the trouble of watching all the clips and tell me
which
video shows these "squibs." I am having trouble visualizing how
squibs would be used in place of shaped charges and kickers.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




Okay...

WTC 7 (NOT hit by an airplane):
http://tinyurl.com/eygeh

WTC 7 has been explained satisfactorily elsewhere in this thread.



If you really think that, then you are delusional. All the evidence that
has been shown proves WTC7 to be brought down by controlled demolition.
If you think otherwise, then copy and paste the info below:






North Tower Squibs:
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2...s-1-marked.avi

South Tower Squibs:
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2...s-1-marked.avi

Neither video plays for me. Do they show the actual explosive
devices
or just the puffs of smoke? If it's the latter they don't provide
proof of explosives.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



I never said the puffs of smoke "prove" anything

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

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:vTkLf.23573$Ug4.4522@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:AzjLf.23564$Ug4.7379@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:f%fLf.22178$Ug4.21685@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote in

FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease
on
the
entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
happened to include terrorist attack insurance
Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives
that needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do
you know how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
before
9/11.
Obviously you don't. Take a look at any major controlled
demolition.
It takes weeks of preparation that includes removal of walls,
windows and structural members as well as making cuts in steel
supports, drilling of holes and cutting rebar in concrete members,
installing charges and det cord etc. Very little of which can be
done without all kinds of people noticing. How come no one noticed
the debris being hauled away before 9-11? Det cord is orange or
bright red and about
3/8"
in diameter and no one noticed many hundreds of yards of this
stuff strung about? You keep referring to squibs, do you know what
they are
or
the difference between a squib and a shaped charge?

As for the "puffs of smoke" jetting out from windows below
the
falling floors they would be from windows being blown out by air
driven by the mass of falling floors. Same with debris going
horizontal.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yes it does take weeks. Bu that fact does not debunk the evidence.
OK, then answer the rest of what I said. How come no one noticed
the
removed walls, the debris being carted off, the exposed supports,
the hundreds of yards of det cord, the prepped structural members
etc? At the very least everyone who had access to the underground
parking lots would have noticed the precut supports.

I have no idea. Any idea would be pure speculation, and would not
prove anything.



Jones' refuted the "air-expulsion due to floors collapsing" theory
of the squibs. See his paper for the details.
I have and he doesn't know what he is talking about. Squibs are
more
commonly used for special effects, ejection seats and small jobs
like that.

You might not understand what he means by squibs. Squibs are the
puffs of smoke caused by the controlled charges. Take a look at the
videos on www.implosionworld.com and compare them.


Have you seen the squibs yourself? There are video clips at the
bottom of this page:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
OK, save me the trouble of watching all the clips and tell me
which
video shows these "squibs." I am having trouble visualizing how
squibs would be used in place of shaped charges and kickers.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Okay...

WTC 7 (NOT hit by an airplane):
http://tinyurl.com/eygeh
WTC 7 has been explained satisfactorily elsewhere in this thread.



If you really think that, then you are delusional. All the evidence that
has been shown proves WTC7 to be brought down by controlled demolition.
If you think otherwise, then copy and paste the info below:




North Tower Squibs:
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2...s-1-marked.avi

South Tower Squibs:
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2...s-1-marked.avi
Neither video plays for me. Do they show the actual explosive
devices
or just the puffs of smoke? If it's the latter they don't provide
proof of explosives.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



I never said the puffs of smoke "prove" anything

Actually you did when I pointed out they were actually windows
blowing out from air pressure. Go back and look.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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