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

In article ,
on Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:08:01 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....


Where is the evidence that a 757 hit the pentagon? Which of the links did
I post that says this? Please tell me

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

TRUTH wrote:

Hmmmm. that's interesting. Yeah I did post that link, I got it from
somewhere without checking into it first, but the information is quite
interesting and am going to read though it. I understand what you mean
now.

I will read through it carefully later, but wanted to point out that
there are lots of opinions on 9/11, and not all of them will be true. For
instance, some people still believe in holligrams and no planes at the
WTC

You are not only stupid, but too lazy to read the first page of the
websites you link to. Now, please clarify. Do you believe that there was
or was not a 757 at the Pentagon? Or, are you saying there was a plane,
but not a 757? Its like you arguing that there were no hijackings, but
posted a link to an article that stated Bush knew about the hijackings
in advance.

Tank Fixer wrote:




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


Sure. Now you are just making things up.
So where did the people go if it landed at some military base ?
And what do you do about all the airmen who would have witnesed such a landing.

This one's easy.
They are saving them up until they get about 4400.
Then, you will see them again.

Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
on Fri, 24 Feb 2006 04:05:43 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence, you must be
talking about yourself.

Not one person has provided proof!

NOTE: a picture of a small non-scorched airplane piece is not proof. It
could have been easily places there by someone.

Maybe that picture I saw of a big honkin airplane engine cover might be proof
enough.


Not to mention any number of people who SAW it hit.


And no one was seen placing airplane parts, some too big for a single
man to carry, at the scene. Now let's sit back and see what his next lie
is

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"mrtravel" wrote in message
. com...
TRUTH wrote:

Hmmmm. that's interesting. Yeah I did post that link, I got it from
somewhere without checking into it first, but the information is quite
interesting and am going to read though it. I understand what you mean
now.

I will read through it carefully later, but wanted to point out that
there are lots of opinions on 9/11, and not all of them will be true.
For
instance, some people still believe in holligrams and no planes at the
WTC

You are not only stupid, but too lazy to read the first page of the
websites you link to. Now, please clarify. Do you believe that there was
or was not a 757 at the Pentagon? Or, are you saying there was a plane,
but not a 757? Its like you arguing that there were no hijackings, but
posted a link to an article that stated Bush knew about the hijackings
in advance.

Yes, all of the above.

Paul Nixon

The last I heard of BYU physics department was those two bozos that did a
press conference annoncing they'd solved cold fusion.

Matt Barrow wrote:
The last I heard of BYU physics department was those two bozos that did a
press conference annoncing they'd solved cold fusion.



I saw an example of cold fusion a month ago. Two cars had a head on
collision with an estimated closing speed of 140 mph. It was in the
lower 30s Fahrenheit and the cars were pretty well fused together.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
The last I heard of BYU physics department was those two bozos that
did a press conference annoncing they'd solved cold fusion.

That's incorrect. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman (P & F) did their work
at the University of Utah - not BYU. Steven Jones did his work at Brigham
Young University. P & F's cold fusion attempts utilized palladium
catalysis. Jones' cold fusion attempts utilized muon-catalyzed fusion. The
two mechanisms have nothing in common except the name "cold fusion". Muon-
catalyzed fusion was predicted decades ago and has been observed in the lab
- the only issue under contention is whether the muons can last long enough
to induce enough fusion events to offset the energy needed to create the
muons.

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
The last I heard of BYU physics department was those two bozos that
did a press conference annoncing they'd solved cold fusion.

That's incorrect. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman (P & F) did their
work
at the University of Utah - not BYU.

Oh!

Steven Jones did his work at Brigham
Young University. P & F's cold fusion attempts utilized palladium
catalysis. Jones' cold fusion attempts utilized muon-catalyzed fusion. The
two mechanisms have nothing in common except the name "cold fusion". Muon-
catalyzed fusion was predicted decades ago and has been observed in the
lab
- the only issue under contention is whether the muons can last long
enough
to induce enough fusion events to offset the energy needed to create the
muons.


Oh!

He's still full of it!

In article ,
on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 07:38:12 -0700,
Matt Barrow attempted to say .....


The last I heard of BYU physics department was those two bozos that did a
press conference annoncing they'd solved cold fusion.

Which happens to be Jones's field ....

Makes you go, Hmmmmmm ???

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.