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

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Jones does not need to be a building engineer. He's a physicist and is
therefore qualified to determine if the government's version defies
physics.

Actually, all that qualifies him to do is *particle* physics (his
speciality is cold fusion, of all things).

This qualifies him for analyzing a fantasy "building demolition" about
as much as it qualifies him to design a skyscraper - in other words, not
at all.

Meanwhile, actual building demolition experts say people like this are
full of ****.

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed.

Actually, a couple of guys looked it over for publication in a
heavily-slanted collection of articles on 9/11. not in any sort of real
peer-reviewed journal with any sort of bearing on the actual subject.

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:
Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed.

By what journal?

Okay, if you mean peer reviewed in that sense, it was not as of yet.

Oh, in other words, a NON-peer-reviewed paper.

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Okay, so I make a little mistake

....like claiming a paper is peer reviewed, like claiming pretty much
everything you've said in this thread (including screwing up the title
of the thread itself)?

TRUTH wrote:

Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed. Perhaps if you look into it instead of
jumping to wild half baked conclusions (being the government's absurd)
version, you'd see it.

By peers, I assume you mean people as wacky as him?

Matt

Chad Irby wrote in news:cirby-82BB57.22102722022006
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Okay, so I make a little mistake

...like claiming a paper is peer reviewed, like claiming pretty much
everything you've said in this thread (including screwing up the title
of the thread itself)?




How about reading the paper for yourself?

TRUTH wrote:

Jones does not need to be a building engineer. He's a physicist and is
therefore qualified to determine if the government's version defies
physics. And since his paper, and the 150 people in st911.org, use science,
and not kooky proofless boxcutter nonsense, they can see that the WTC was
taken down by controled demolitions. So can anyone else who looks at the
information I posted.


Not really. He is lately an expert in Cold Fusion and Christ's visit to
America.

His arguments are not particularly plausible or convincing.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

Jones does not need to be a building engineer. He's a physicist and
is therefore qualified to determine if the government's version
defies physics. And since his paper, and the 150 people in st911.org,
use science, and not kooky proofless boxcutter nonsense, they can see
that the WTC was taken down by controled demolitions. So can anyone
else who looks at the information I posted.


Not really. He is lately an expert in Cold Fusion and Christ's visit
to America.

His arguments are not particularly plausible or convincing.







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?

How do explain THREE collapses at near free fall speed? First time in
history from fire!

Where did the energy come from to pulvarize concrete and office furniture
into particles of fine powder?

Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?

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.)



Also, why did the government hall away and destroy the evidence before it
could be properly analyzed?

Chad Irby wrote in news:cirby-8CA32E.22050922022006
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:



Meanwhile, actual building demolition experts say people like this are
full of ****.



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

TRUTH wrote:
Well, I am human too, and entitled to make mistakes. Your statement
would only be believed those without the intelligence to understand
the evidence, or who aren't capable of believing that our government
can be evil afterall.

Lots of people believe the U.S. government can be (and has committed) evil
- I count myself as one of those.

That's understandable I agree. Still, I have not
read ONE reply in these threads that explain ANY of the clear
scientific envidence provided.

You are married to the conclusion and that colors everything for you.