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

Truth,

that explain ANY of the clear scientific
envidence provided.


It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science, either,
until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly the purpose
of peer review.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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.

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.


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.

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.

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

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

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:10:23 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

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

I would be happy to do so. My billable rate is $95/hour. I am
estimating that it will take approximately 60 hours of research to
review his paper and check the accuracy of his sources. In addition,
another 5 hours of report writing time. As you are a new client, i
would require full payment prior to beginning services.

Until the check clears, I am out and will get back to work.

TRUTH wrote:

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

Why? Jone's is not a recognized expert in this area.

TRUTH wrote:
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

No, I am in Florida.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Truth,

that explain ANY of the clear scientific
envidence provided.


It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science, either,
until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly the purpose
of peer review.

Actually real engineers in Jones' own school have debunked it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

TRUTH wrote:
I do not have a physics/engineering degree, but do have a technical
background, and definitely have an abundance of common sense.

You may be able to test Jones' speculations in the comfort of your own
home. No need for any math or computer simulations. You'll need a set of
Dominos or other long skinny rectangular blocks. Construct a mini WTC or
WTC-7 along these lines:

---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| | -- Knock out support column here.
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
------------------ - Ground level

Using a finger, small ball, or other mechanism to knock out a support
Domino about 2/3rds the way up. Observe the collapse. Does the tower tip
over or does it collapse in a manner similar to the WTC collapse? It has
been 40-some years since I built toy buildings out of Dominos (more fun
than playing the game, IMHO) and haven't got any games pieces or blocks
handy, so it will be interesting to see what you or others report.
Clearly no explosives have been planted in the model (using fire crackers
should be left for advanced experiments under adult supervision).

As extra credit, if you can rig something to begin free falling next to
the model when the top of the building starts falling, you can get an
idea how much slower the top falls relative to free fall.

Let me know how the experiment goes.

An average troll by the lame handle of "TRUTH" wrote:
"-hh" wrote:

TRUTH wrote:

Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or structural
engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false

Jones claims that the presence of black smoke means the fire
temperatures could not have exceeded 650 C.


That is correct. btw, what is your expertise and education, may I ask.

You first.


...
That is pure nonsense! One cannot say, "For the Towers to have collapsed
from fire, the fire must have been hotter somewhere. Therefore the fire
WAS hottter somewhere."

That's not what I said.


Where is the proof of that hotter fire?

You have asked the wrong question. The correct question is:
Where is the proof that there *could* *not* *have* *been* a hotter
fire?

The problem is that some black smoke is merely proof of *a* low order
fire; it does not positively preclude the presence of a higher order
fire.


There is no evidence showing hotter fires in other areas.

There's the evidence of tons of melted & salmon/yellow hot iron. That
says that there was a huge amount of heat that was present that
requires a source.

Jones tries to explain this away with his thermite claim. The problem
with this is that it is pragmatically inadequate to accomplish it on
the scale required: at the lower limit, you would have needed to have
smuggled at least 2,500 cubic feet of thermite *per floor* of the
building, and the upper limit is ~10,000 cubic feet *per floor*. The
scale is simply out of bounds to be considered practicable as a covert
preparation...let alone at low risk.


One cannot simply assume that there was.

Actually, as per the principles of Occam's Razor, we are obligated to
make just that assumption. It is not until the most simple assumption
has been clearly disproven do you from a causal approach "fall back" to
a more complicated solution set.


...you're treating it lile it's all there is. How about explaining the rest of that paper?

I don't need to, because you only asked for (and I quote): "one piece
of evidence". Your request has been satified.



-hh

An average troll by the lame handle of "TRUTH" wrote:
"-hh" wrote:

TRUTH wrote:

Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or structural
engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false

Jones claims that the presence of black smoke means the fire
temperatures could not have exceeded 650 C.


That is correct. btw, what is your expertise and education, may I ask.

You first.


...
That is pure nonsense! One cannot say, "For the Towers to have collapsed
from fire, the fire must have been hotter somewhere. Therefore the fire
WAS hottter somewhere."

That's not what I said.


Where is the proof of that hotter fire?

You have asked the wrong question. The correct question is:
Where is the proof that there *could* *not* *have* *been* a hotter
fire?

The problem is that some black smoke is merely proof of *a* low order
fire; it does not positively preclude the presence of a higher order
fire.


There is no evidence showing hotter fires in other areas.

There's the evidence of tons of melted & salmon/yellow hot iron. That
says that there was a huge amount of heat that was present that
requires a source.

Jones tries to explain this away with his thermite claim. The problem
with this is that it is pragmatically inadequate to accomplish it on
the scale required: at the lower limit, you would have needed to have
smuggled at least 2,500 cubic feet of thermite *per floor* of the
building, and the upper limit is ~10,000 cubic feet *per floor*. The
scale is simply out of bounds to be considered practicable as a covert
preparation...let alone at low risk.


One cannot simply assume that there was.

Actually, as per the principles of Occam's Razor, we are obligated to
make just that assumption. It is not until the most simple assumption
has been clearly disproven do you from a causal approach "fall back" to
a more complicated solution set.


...you're treating it lile it's all there is. How about explaining the rest of that paper?

I don't need to, because you only asked for (and I quote): "one piece
of evidence". Your request has been satified.



-hh