Reply #78: Professor Jones' case is for the foolish

[LARED]

Let take his views on WTC 2 collapse

From his paper

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

We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?


Well for starter he might have asked some of his more experience peers for advice. Stating the blocked turned mostly to powder is plan nonsense. Stating in order to explain the collapse we need explosives is nonsense. The foolishness posted by others that the angular momentum dictates the top should have slide off is nonsense. What do you expect the top section to do when its foundation is destroyed. He's a clue. It collapses like a house of cards. Gravity wins every time. No foundation no structural integrity. Anyone willing to look at how the towers were constructed would understand this. Professor Jones should have figured this out in about ten seconds.

If he was really interesting in finding out where all the powder came from. it is a pretty simple exercise using goggle to find out all the perimeter columns were filled with powdered vermiculite. 8 million tons in total if I recall. Not to mention the drywll, ceiling tiles, insulation, glass, etc, etc ,etc. But no, why bother to do that when you can just simply chalk it up to explosives for all the 9/11 'researchers' to salivate over.

see here http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem5/911.wtc.2.demolition.north.very.close.mpg

If you look closely you can see the collapse starts prior to dust being generated.

Look here and you can see the upper part of the building collapsing into the lower part

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem5/911.wtc.2.north.very.close.slow.wmv

Also, how does this constitute an evaluation based on physics by professor Jones? He brings the second law of thermodynamics into his tale as if it is something to be in awe of. That is not an evaluation. It is not even material to his opinion.

The guy should be censured for posting such unscholarly work. But if you have hitched your wagon to this fraud, don't let me sway you.