Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

Jens Krueger wrote:
Newps wrote:


According to the article, the alledged hijackers would have had to be
trained instrument pilots,

No.


They were actually certificated Commercial Pilots with Instrument
Ratings plus they took lessons in

Whatever. The point is they didn't have to be.

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Read Dr Jones paper and show why his facts do not apply:

Why should I? You won't understand the answers. Hell, you don't even
know why he thinks he's right, and you won't pay attention to the folks
who already analyzed it (the rest of the people in his department).

Here's the first clue, though: he bases his entire argument on the idea
that jet fuel won't melt steel, while mostly glossing over the fact that
you don't need to melt steel or even get it close to its melting temp
before you lose most of its strength.

A second clue: the "squibs" he talks about were the structural steel
pieces breaking loose. Anyone who's been around a structure collapse
knows exactly what this looks like.

The basic issue with this looney's entire thesis is that he doesn't have
a clue about how structures fail. This is info you can get readily, if
you do *real* research. He did not. I guess the UFO hunts and
cold-fusion experiments he's been doing have weakened his skills...

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

Pooh Bear wrote:
Snip John Logajan's post

Darn! There goes my 15 minutes of fame - they got my name wrong!

Shakes fist at sky

Johnny Bravo wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:13:52 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in news:cirby-380196.00091223022006
:

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).



Read Dr Jones paper and show why his facts do not apply:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Dr Jones isn't a structural engineer, he isn't a civil engineer; he's a
researcher in alterative energy sources. You demand qualifications from us but
ignore Dr. Jones' lack of qualifications and at the same time handwave away
statements from his own boss and the civil engineering department at his own
college.

The BYU physics department has issued a statement: "The university is
aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence
regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a
number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty
members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not
convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant
scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

The chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr.
Miller, is on record stating "I think without exception, the structural
engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims
made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity
to these claims."

This simply illustrates that the 'truth movement' are interested only in listening
to kooks. If you're qualified in any discipline then they don't want to hear what
you have to say.

Graham

TRUTH wrote:

"Dan Luke" wrote in
:

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
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

Indeed.

You have finally convinced him and everyone else reading this thread
that you are a delusional moron. You may go now.

'Bye.

And you are biggest asshole believing bin Laden did this from his cave.

Hey, he's got a 'hi-tech cave' with satellite phones and stuff. ;-)

What it shows it you actually don't need anything more than highly
motivated individuals to wreak havoc with low-tech methods.

Graham

mrtravel wrote:

TRUTH wrote:

Did a 757 actually "vaporize into nothingness"? And if it did, what was
wreckage from a military aircraft doing there?

How did a 757 crash into the FIRST FLOOR of the Pentagon without
scorching the green lawn?

So, assuming it was a different aircraft, why didn't it scorch the green
lawn? Now you are suggesting that people didn't really see a plane crash?

Yup, they were all deluded by CIA 'mind rays' ! LOL

Graham

mrtravel wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

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


He would deny there is any evidence there is even a bag.

LMAO !!!!!!!!

Graham

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Matt,

A psychotic goof ball posts drivel and fifty people give him what he wants!

You know, you have a point there. OTOH, it's just so much fun jerking the
chain...

You know.... The strange thing is that I reckon he really believes his fictional
construction of events.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote in
:


mrtravel wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

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


He would deny there is any evidence there is even a bag.

LMAO !!!!!!!!

Graham




You follow your red herring arguments with this nonsense, huh? How bout
looking at the real evidence. Come on, take your head out of the sand

Pooh,

You know.... The strange thing is that I reckon he really believes his fictional
construction of events.

´
Yes, but we can still play and have fun with him.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)