Mike wrote in
:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:33:17 GMT, TRUTH wrote:


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?

Never bofore has there been a fire of this magnitude in a steel framed
structure where the spray applied fireproofing was mechanically
removed by the impact of an airliner. In addition, there has never
been a fire in a steel framed building where many of the support
columns at the perimeter and some at the interior were mechanically
severed by the impace of an airplane.

Why did NIST change the data for their computer simulations?
I suggest you ask them.


From Jones' paper:

The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases
based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in
building collapse. But ‘one must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe
cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST
report:

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2)
was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of
simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the
simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports
[e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input,
but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the
pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were
adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to
provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter
columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building
collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of
such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen.
Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the
sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get
the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were
“adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained
that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns
in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)






Why did they not analyse the structural behavior of the buildings
after the onset of collapse inituation?
Because once collapse started, it was apparent that the loads by the
falling upper portion would not be able to be resisted by the
remianing portion of the building and that progressive collapse would
occur.

Why did they make the claim that collapse initiation would
"inevitably" lead to global collapse, when it never happened before in
history?
This is absolute BS. There are many cases of progressive collapse
throughout modern history.



Never in steel framed buildings caused by fire. So how could they make
that claim?


Don't you think it suspicious that WTC 7 collapsed in "controlled
demolition style from fire, when it never happened before? Take it in
context with all the other information please.




How could it be from fire when they resemble controlled demolitions?
Because a controlled demolition is a progressive collapse. Fire can
cause members to be weakened which can result in a progressive
collapse.


What about the FDNY statements about flashes and explosions that they
said they thought were controlled demolition?
And these people are experts? The flashes and "explosions" that they
heard could be the steel columns buckling and the exterior facad being
crushed as the upper levels begin to come down. Depending on the
tolerances, the columns could buckle, the eniter upper portion drop by
an inch or 2 causing the facade to be crushed and appear to explode.


Please read the quotes again. Multiple FDNY personnel (including captains
and commissioners) make very specific statements.



?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.)
I explained before that there was no simultaneous severing of the
columns.


So, in your opinion, Matthys Levy, the Structural Engineer who worked for
the WTC leaseholder's insurance company, is wrong?




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




Please provide a professional debunk of Jones' paper. Please.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html