Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

TRUTH wrote:

Note: basic scientific laws CANNOT be changed

And you just admiited you don't understand science. You simply don't have
the first clue about real scientific analysis. You seem to prefer wildly
inaccurate 'folk lore' ideas.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

I am not a scientist..........But I can use science to disprove the
absurd government version

It is painnfully clear that science is way over your head.

You couldn't 'scientifically' find your way out of a brown paper bag.

Graham





You're making an idiot out of yourself. You have provided no proof.

An anyone who thinks a 757 can vaporize into nothingness must have a
paper bag over their head.


That snopes article is ridiculous. You should use rational thinking and
you'll understand.

This picture is most ridiculous of all:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg

That's all there is from a 757? The whole plane vaporized and that small
piece wastn't even scorched?


Where is the **video evidence** that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon? The
government released a measly five frames of very poor quality video
showing "something". Whatever it was was not a 757. Why did the FBI
confiscate video tape from a gas station across the street? Perhaps
because it would show what reeeeeeeeealy hit the Pentagon?

Why did air traffic controllers say that they could not believe that what
they saw was a 757. Perhaps because it wasn't?

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

Note: basic scientific laws CANNOT be changed

And you just admiited you don't understand science. You simply don't have
the first clue about real scientific analysis. You seem to prefer wildly
inaccurate 'folk lore' ideas.

Graham



Liar. I never said I don't understand science.,

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

You can't provide the proof because there is no proof.

And you sir are a nothing more than a denialist.

Graham




Someday you'll wake up. My job with you is done

TRUTH wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:
My point has been made already. The information in all those
websites shows very clearly: 9/11 was orchestrated by the US
government to building public support to invade Afghanistan and
Iraq.

I want you to explain to me why the FE analysis is flawed. If it
isn't, all your speculations are invalid. Replicating speculations is
unscientific. I know how to do finite element analysis - I expect you
to deal with the science you claim backs your assertion.

Now put up or stop cross posting stuff scientifically proven to be
false.

Okay, First explain the term "FE". I am not a scientist, an engineer,
or a pilot. But I can use science to disprove the absurd government
version

FE = Finite element. Wikipedia appears to have a good intro:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method

The Purdue study I posted earlier utiliized FE code to simulate the
Pentagon collision. I've written some simple 2-dimensional FE code myself.
The only book I have on the subject on my bookshelf though is "An
Introduction to the Finite Element Method" by J. N. Reddy. So I'm vaguely
familiar with the subject.

Pooh Bear wrote in
:


TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:

The conclusion I draw from your comment is that many people are
too embarrassed to admit possible government involvement in 9/11,
so they refuse to thing it, reagrdless of overwhelming evidence.

The conclusion I draw is that you're unable to face the *actual
truth* for whatever half-assed reason you might have.

Graham

Okay, where is the evidence? Show it, and be specific.

The evidence is in front of your damn nose.

You simply choose to ignore it and instead substitute pure speculation
based on ignorance.

Graham






ha ha ha ha ha

TRUTH wrote:
Chad Irby wrote in
:
Not to mention the bodies.

And not to mention that the people who did it *took credit for the
act*.

What you said is not factual. If you think it is, prove it. Show me the
evidence.

Here's a list of everyone on AA flight 77 - full names, ages, and where
they are from. Easy enough to locate their relatives, if you da

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tra...7.victims.html

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Where is the evidence showing the government's version?

Aside from the video tapes, the massive piles of physical evidence, and
the fact that the guys behind the attacks TOOK CREDIT for them?

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

What you said is not factual.

Over the last few years, I've met more than a few people who were either
witnesses to the attacks or who helped reconstruct the whole thing.

On the other hand, you (the crazy person) have a few Web sites written
by other crazy people, and one "scientific" paper that you yourself
admit wasn't even peer reviewed (after falsely claiming that it was).

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Okay, First explain the term "FE". I am not a scientist, an engineer, or a
pilot. But I can use science to disprove the absurd government version

So your whole point is that, even though you have sparse background or
knowledge of science (and from your posts, what little you claim to know
is false), you can tell us that it's false, because, er...