BYU Physics professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled

by **st4** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:14 pm

Sorry nomo, but you're wrong. I show people CD info all day long and they are LISTENING TO ME! Bombs brought down those buildings PERIOD. BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM. And THEN the tower came down!

by **st4** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:19 pm

Maybe you're disinfo nomo. When does YOUR check arrive? The first week of the month or the last? Or do you get paid quarterly?

by **banned** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:28 pm

...and I'll repost my comment from the Atta thread, with slight revisions: What made them fall down isn't important. Bombs, planes, the Big Bad Wolf huffing and puffing. You will never be able to trace back from the method of destruction to the planner(s) of 9/11. JFK researchers have had 42 years as of a week from Tuesday and have never done it in that case. The planners had to have MEANS MOTIVE OPPORTUNITY That's how you find the prime movers. Nobody really gives a crap about the pawns on a chessboard (or the formalities of which piece moves how). It's the chess master who is important. Decapitate the chess master and the game is over. If 42 years from now you're still arguing about the physics/mechanics of the building falling down and haven't nailed the fuckers who planned and carried out the entire black false flag murderous "op"...YOU are nothing but their pawn. Stop doing what they expect you to do, God damn it! We KNOW who had MEANS MOTIVE OPPORTUNITY His name is Richard Cheney aka the Torture Master aka Scooter's Boss. Veep Crashcart himself. START there and make your case against him. MEANS MOTIVE OPPORTUNITY No one else had all 3.

by **nomo** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:47 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Maybe you're disinfo nomo.<hr></blockquote> You know your argument is weak when you have to resort to namecalling. Show me the facts. Lay out the evidence. Point me to some experts. This board is called Rigorous Intuition, not just intuition. I don't doubt the good professor's intention, or that he's for real. But he's no expert on construction engineering or controlled demolition, and worst of all, he brings no new evidence to the table.

by **st4** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:48 pm

<a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1912.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1912.topic</a>

by **FourthBase** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So credibility to you is determined by whether someone thinks the same as you do? That's not very rigorous. How about basing credibility on the facts brought to the table?<hr></blockquote> 6.5 seconds vs. 6 seconds free fall. The "jets" or whatever going upward. And then there are the videos of WTC 7 imploding. You don't even need to be rigorous or intuitive to see that. All you have to do is not be blind. SO NOW YOU FOCUS ON WTC 7 NOMO. YOU HAVE YET TO MAKE A SINGLE SUBSTANTIVE POST IN THIS THREAD.

by **Qutb** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If Qutb doesn't think that WTC7 was CD, then he has no credibility with me.<hr></blockquote> I'm waiting for the NIST report on WTC7, and I'll make up my mind after having read it. Would it be possible to produce the collapse of WTC7, the way it happend, by planting explosive charges on key columns? Perhaps. Probably. Unlike the towers, you don't get that many clues just by looking at the videos and the pictures. But the gradual collapse of the east penthouse, beginning 8.2 seconds before the main structure begins to collapse, is one clue that may point at structural damage and fire as the cause. At least it shows the columns didn't fail simultaneously. This is also indicated by the "kink". I think the following is a bit too much of a coincidence: - The penthouse roofline is aligned with interior columns 79, 80, 81. Thus, it is assumed that those are the first to fail. - The fifth floor had a pressurized fuel line supplying emergency generators, supplied by two 6,000 gallon tanks. - There were no external windows on the third through sixth floors, so it's hard to say how severe the fire was there, but fires were reported on floors 6, 7, and 8. - In 1997, fireproofing was observed to be "prominently missing" on fifth floor framing. - A transfer system using cantilever girders and trusses between the 5th and 7th floor transferred the load from the upper floors to the structural members and foundation system that was built prior to the WTC 7 office tower. Trusses, with some of the fireproofing missing, are vulnerable in a fire (as seen in the twin towers). This is how I undestand the sequence of things in NIST's working hypothesis: An initial failure in the lower floors on the east side of the building and/or a failure of columns 79, 80, and 81 on the east side, led to a failure of floor-column connections progressing vertically up to the penthouse (explaining the collapse of the penthouse), which would pile debris on the east side of the building, which would damage or sever the transfer girders and trusses on floors 5-7, causing a horizontal progression of failure in the core columns (which were supported by the trusses and girders). I have no idea how probable or not this is, but the delay between the collapse of the east penthouse and the rest of the building, and the "kink", would tend to support something like this hypothesis, I think. Intuitively, I tend to think that the unusual design with the transfer system on floors 5-7 is the key to the collapse. But I'm of course talking out of my ass regarding that. This is what FEMA wrote about it: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.<hr></blockquote> Further research, investigation and analysis is being done, so let's wait and see what conclusion NIST reach. ------------- Mr. Jones said - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire<hr></blockquote> The WTC towers weren't conventional steel-framed buildings. If they had been, then quite correctly, they wouldn't have collapsed, at least not the way they did. But if you were to build them in the old-fashioned way, you'd have to use a lot more steel, and it would be difficult to build them that tall. No other "tube withing a tube" type building has ever had to endure the amount of damage and fire that brought down the twin towers.

by **nomo** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:39 pm

OK -- I'm looking at WTC 7, a 47 story building with a huge chunk of it's south facade ripped away, and fires possibly fueled by a huge diesel tank burning on several floors. Now, certain floors, or supports, or beams are starting to give way. The building is starting to go. Would I expect it topple over? A 47 story building? On that scale, buildings don't topple. They come straight down, crushing everything in their path. And if that's true for a 47 story building, it most certainly is true for two 110 story buildings. Point is, we cannot compare these collapses to anything else, because there simply has never been anything like it. I remember the sheer size of these monoliths, and common sense tells me the only way they could have come down is the way they did. And you know, that's just what I believe. I wish I could find someone to pay me for my beliefs...

by **FourthBase** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:48 pm

Fine it comes straight down, let's say, from the fire and damage. But not as fast as a rock dropped from its roof. Where was the resistance? (The resistance in the WTC 1 and 2 is easier to see, at least. Although the same time issue is there.) And what are the discharges that go UP as 7 begins to fall?

by **st4** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:21 pm

nomo: "OK -- I'm looking at WTC 7, a 47 story building with a huge chunk of it's south facade ripped away, and fires possibly fueled by a huge diesel tank burning on several floors." Ha! Where? The SW corner you mean? PM/NIST's Sunder made a completely unsubstantiated claim without providing proof.. Where's the photos of this supposed 25-percent of the building's depth to the south facade being "scooped out"? All the cameras in that area that day and 4 years later... still nothing, except for a photo of a damaged corner (which looks doctored if you ask me). That building was blown up. It telescoped down into its own footprint in 6.3 seconds. Even if the south face was damaged to the extent that Sunder "claims" the building should have fallen like a tree after an axe was used to "scoop out" 25-percent of its depth. IF I remember correctly, the fuel oil distribution pipe was located in the North side of Building 7 on the 5th floor ( protected by a concrete masonry wall and outer perimeter wall), which would have been on the complete opposite side of where the towers collapsed (they collapsed on the South side of WTC 7). It was this fuel oil distribution pipe that FEMA said was probably breached by falling debris and that's what led to the diesel fuel fires in WTC 7 and its subsequent collapse. I find it hard to believe that a fuel oil distribution pipe located in the north end of the building would have been breached by debris that fell on the South side of the building. If anyone would like to research FEMA's study on WTC 7, here's a link to a critical review of their report (see sections "5.3.5 Power" and "5.4 Building Loads"): <a href="http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm">www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm</a>

by **cortez** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:23 pm

<img src="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture2.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Looks like a duck

by **cortez** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:26 pm

Sounds like a Duck <img src="http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem1/watch.frame.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <a href="http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem1/wtc.2.demolitio.south.closeup.zoomout.avi">Link to Video</a> this is the sound only from from the video above of the south tower .<a href="http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/wtc-south-tower.aif">audio link</a> this is the sound from a demolition in detroit, the hudson building (pretty sure that’s what it is) <a href="http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/jhudson1.aif">audio link</a>

by **st4** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:04 am

Here's the audio of the CBS (?) television news interview with Prof. Jones from yesterday (Thanks to <a href="http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/index.php">John Gold</a> for this link): http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/jonesinterview.mp3

by **st4** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:14 am

Nice pic of the WTC 7 rubble pile, Cortez. I haven't seen that one in a while. That about says it all. Maybe demo crews should just pour some diesel fuel on buildings and set 'em on fire instead of spending all that time & energy that it would take planning and planting explosives in buildings to achieve a such a tidy rubble pile like WTC 7. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

by **st4** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:21 am

Here's the Alex Jones interview with Prof. Jones from today: (need bittorrent client to download.) <a href="http://tracker1.conspiracycentral.net:6969/stats.html?info_hash=ee50bf4ca8ae629009ec27fdad08ba39856ac521">tracker1.conspiracycentra...39856ac521</a> Source: <a href="http://tracker1.conspiracycentral.net:6969/">tracker1.conspiracycentral.net:6969/</a>

BYU Physics professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled

nomo

hmmmm?

Well, I'm a BYOB professor...

Re: hmmmm?

Here ya go shill

Re: Here ya go shill

Re: BYU Physics professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled

Substantive post

Re: Substantive post

WTC 7

Re: WTC 7

Re: WTC 7

television news interview

rubble pic

Jones interviews Jones

Who is online