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

"khobar" wrote in
news:nxpMf.4760$Sp2.702@fed1read02:

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
"khobar" wrote in news:6L_Lf.4564$Sp2.2013
@fed1read02:

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Untrue, and I can demonstrate that he




Chad Irby wrote in
news:cirby-6A2D32.09511624022006 @news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence,

...aside from the *hundreds* of eyewitnesses (it flew over a
crowded freeway on the way in),



First of all, many people reported seeing a plane that looked
nothing like a 757. (They reported a much smaller plane.)

Second, if one could say that the FDNY personnel acounts of
flashes, explosions, bombs at the WTC (that they compared to
conrolled demoltions!) are unreliable, then the same could be said
for any eyewitnesses who think they saw a 757 fly near the
Pentagon. Fire department personnel may not be experts in
controlled demolitions, but they sure as hell know more about it
than the "average joe" knows
about
airplanes.

Third, where exactly did you hear that *hundreds* of eyewitnesses
reported a 757 at the Pentagon? Do you have a URL for this?



the light poles knocked over by the plane on
approach,


easily accomlished by a small drone




the missing commercial flight (it was a regularly scheduled
flight, and never landed anywhere else),


Could have landed at a military base. Or, may God help them, shot
down over the Atlantic



the actual physical debris
(yes, it was there, and yes, it was in the colors used by that
airline),


If you're referring to this
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg

It was easily dropped by someone involved.


Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all*
the passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal)
practically incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal
plane) survived?



and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per
hour...


That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for
yourself

You provided proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon yourself, and
acknowledged
such.

Paul Nixon





You must be twisting my words. I never said such a thing

Actually you did, when I pointed out that you posted a link to proof
that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. In summary, your response was
something to the effect of "opps, I'm not perfect!".

Paul Nixon





That wasn't in response to finding evidence of a 757 at the pentagon,

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
"khobar" wrote in
news:nxpMf.4760$Sp2.702@fed1read02:

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
"khobar" wrote in news:6L_Lf.4564$Sp2.2013
@fed1read02:

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Untrue, and I can demonstrate that he




Chad Irby wrote in
news:cirby-6A2D32.09511624022006 @news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence,

...aside from the *hundreds* of eyewitnesses (it flew over a
crowded freeway on the way in),



First of all, many people reported seeing a plane that looked
nothing like a 757. (They reported a much smaller plane.)

Second, if one could say that the FDNY personnel acounts of
flashes, explosions, bombs at the WTC (that they compared to
conrolled demoltions!) are unreliable, then the same could be said
for any eyewitnesses who think they saw a 757 fly near the
Pentagon. Fire department personnel may not be experts in
controlled demolitions, but they sure as hell know more about it
than the "average joe" knows
about
airplanes.

Third, where exactly did you hear that *hundreds* of eyewitnesses
reported a 757 at the Pentagon? Do you have a URL for this?



the light poles knocked over by the plane on
approach,


easily accomlished by a small drone




the missing commercial flight (it was a regularly scheduled
flight, and never landed anywhere else),


Could have landed at a military base. Or, may God help them, shot
down over the Atlantic



the actual physical debris
(yes, it was there, and yes, it was in the colors used by that
airline),


If you're referring to this
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg

It was easily dropped by someone involved.


Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all*
the passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal)
practically incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal
plane) survived?



and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per
hour...


That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for
yourself

You provided proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon yourself, and
acknowledged
such.

Paul Nixon





You must be twisting my words. I never said such a thing

Actually you did, when I pointed out that you posted a link to proof
that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. In summary, your response was
something to the effect of "opps, I'm not perfect!".

Paul Nixon





That wasn't in response to finding evidence of a 757 at the pentagon,

What was it in response to then, eh?

Paul Nixon

TRUTH wrote:

"khobar" wrote in news:6L_Lf.4564$Sp2.2013
@fed1read02:

You provided proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon yourself, and

acknowledged

such.

Paul Nixon



You must be twisting my words. I never said such a thing

You provide a link to a Pro-Truth website that said such a thing.
Are you just blindly posting links without reading the first webpage
they point to?

TRUTH wrote:


That is completely untrue. Look at the pictures and see for yourself

You provided proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon yourself, and

acknowledged

such.

Paul Nixon

You must be twisting my words. I never said such a thing

You were previously given this information by 2 other people, and since
you didn't know how to answer them, you ignored it.

Do you deny posting this link?
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

Do you understand what is said there?

To summarize: The website indicates the claim that there wasn't a plane
was made to discredit the "Truth" people, because it is so obvious there
was a 757 at the Pentagon.

So, these people don't believe the government's story, but do believe
there was a 757. Are you now going to claim that you posted the link
because you didn't agree with it?

An average troll by the lame handle of "TRUTH" wrote:
"-hh" wrote
An average troll by the lame handle of "TRUTH" wrote:

...btw, what is your expertise and education, may I ask.

You first.

Just a placeholder :-)

...you're treating it lile it's all there is. How about explaining
the rest of that paper?

I don't need to, because you only asked for (and I quote): "one piece
of evidence". Your request has been satified.

You're a government shill.

You've resorted to namecalling; how nice. According to Bell's Law,
this means that you've run out of substantiative things to say, which
means you've admitted that you've lost the arguement.

The laws of physics and logic of causality don't care who points out
the facts, because that cannot change the facts. Logically, "a chain
is only as strong as its weakest link", so it only takes one disproven
fact to debunk Jone's claims...and from what I provided, I illustrated
that Jone's chain was broken at least twice, which makes it quite
compelling that he's completely and utterly wrong.

You're free to believe that Jones can ignore the laws of physics and
logical causality if you wish, but you'll be completely, utterly and
forever wrong.


-hh

mrtravel wrote in news:R2yMf.25466$_S7.18005
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

TRUTH wrote:

"khobar" wrote in news:6L_Lf.4564$Sp2.2013
@fed1read02:

You provided proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon yourself, and

acknowledged

such.

Paul Nixon



You must be twisting my words. I never said such a thing

You provide a link to a Pro-Truth website that said such a thing.
Are you just blindly posting links without reading the first webpage
they point to?



Which link was this? I posted so many I really don't remember

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 02:30:04 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:



Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:26:15 GMT, TRUTH wrote:


Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?


Teeth are not your typical organic matter.

They would fit any reasonable definition that I can think of. Now,
fillings, that's something else.

Didn't say they weren't organic, just that they aren't typical in terms of
being burned up in a fire. One study has 85% of the teeth tested survive a fire
lasting 50 minutes in which temperatures exceeded 1,000 degrees.

A typical aluminum skinned airliner subjected to such temperatures and then
having a a few floors of a building collapse on the wreckage is going to all but
obliterate it to casual inspection; but human remains inside are likely to still
have recoverable DNA.

I think the bulk of a tooth is inorganic, and contains no DNA
but the innermost part has the nerve and a little flesh and blood
that is organic, and does have DNA. But if the tooth is heated
long and hot enough that DNA will be destroyed.

Besides, separating bone fragments and teeth from pulverized plaster
and cement, while no doubt doable, could not have been thoroughly
done within the amount of time during which the debris was removed
and disposed of.

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 02:30:04 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:



Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:26:15 GMT, TRUTH wrote:


Also, remember the government claims that they identified *all* the
passengers from their DNA. The plane (make of metal) practically
incinerates, but organic matter (inside the metal plane) survived?


Teeth are not your typical organic matter.

They would fit any reasonable definition that I can think of. Now,
fillings, that's something else.

Didn't say they weren't organic, just that they aren't typical in terms
of
being burned up in a fire. One study has 85% of the teeth tested survive
a fire
lasting 50 minutes in which temperatures exceeded 1,000 degrees.

A typical aluminum skinned airliner subjected to such temperatures and
then
having a a few floors of a building collapse on the wreckage is going to
all but
obliterate it to casual inspection; but human remains inside are likely
to still
have recoverable DNA.

I think the bulk of a tooth is inorganic,

Well no, unless its an artificial replacement a tooth was
made by the body that its attached too and is by definition organic.

and contains no DNA
but the innermost part has the nerve and a little flesh and blood
that is organic, and does have DNA. But if the tooth is heated
long and hot enough that DNA will be destroyed.


True but a tooth is essentially a sealed ceramic capsule.
Its a matter of record that DNA has been retrieved from
victims who's bodies were reduced to charcoal in a fire.

Besides, separating bone fragments and teeth from pulverized plaster
and cement, while no doubt doable, could not have been thoroughly
done within the amount of time during which the debris was removed
and disposed of.


Well no, it was done while the wreckage was being sorted and
sifted off site and they had several months to do this.

Again they recovered considerable such samples
from the Oceanic crashes of TWA-800 and SwissAir 111
so recovery from the WTC is quite believable.

Keith

Keith W wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

...

True but a tooth is essentially a sealed ceramic capsule.
Its a matter of record that DNA has been retrieved from
victims who's bodies were reduced to charcoal in a fire.

Understood.


Besides, separating bone fragments and teeth from pulverized plaster
and cement, while no doubt doable, could not have been thoroughly
done within the amount of time during which the debris was removed
and disposed of.


Well no, it was done while the wreckage was being sorted and
sifted off site and they had several months to do this.

It took several months just to clear the materials from the site.

Given that identifiable remains were found for less than half
of the victims I tend to think the examination was not that
thorough.


Again they recovered considerable such samples
from the Oceanic crashes of TWA-800 and SwissAir 111
so recovery from the WTC is quite believable.


Oh, I agree that it is quite believable. In fact, I am surprised that
so many of the victims had no remains recovered. The only
viable explanation is that a lot of human remains were left
unseparrated from the rubble. One would expect that most
of the bodies of the victims killed in the collapse would have
still been largely in one piece when the dust settled, leaving
concentrated pockets of remains to be exhumed later.

--

FF

TRUTH wrote:



Hmmmm. that's interesting. Yeah I did post that link, I got it from
somewhere without checking into it first,

This is your main problem and would have saved you from wearing out your
keyboard.