View Single Post
  #22  
Old February 23rd 06, 02:40 PM posted to rec.travel.air,alt.disasters.aviation,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Physics Professor's Peer Reviewed Paper on WTC CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS on 9/11

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.