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

Dan wrote in news:VmlLf.23583$Ug4.4264@dukeread12:



I never said the puffs of smoke "prove" anything

Actually you did when I pointed out they were actually windows
blowing out from air pressure. Go back and look.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




No I didn't.

Dan wrote in news:golLf.23584$Ug4.4830@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:wUkLf.23574$Ug4.702@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:uIjLf.23565$Ug4.14143@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:CLgLf.22529$Ug4.21186@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:

Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not
scientific. There are dozens of things you are not taking into
consideration.
You keep using the word "scientific" without any apparent
understanding of its meaning. Why do you keep demanding
"scientific proof" when you don't even understand the science in
Jones' paper? You said so yourself.

You are putting words in my mouth and twisting their meaning.
Please Stop.
I didn't put anything in your mouth, YOU keep using the term
"scientific proof" and YOU said you don't understand the science
in Jones' paper. It's clear you have no idea what scientific proof
is
and
therefore nothing will ever convince you your conspiracy theory is
full of holes.


Give me a few specfic examples. Where exactly are the holes?



If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should
have no problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not apply.
Go read his paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his
statements.
It's been done several times, but you don't understand it any
more
than you understand Jones.
It's been done? Where???? I know of no physicists or engineers
who debunked Jones' paper.
Several in this thread and others like rec.aviation.homebuilt
have
debunked Jones' paper. You just choose to ignore that fact.


Do me the favor and point me to the thread.



It's only
the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the scientific
evidence
shows otherwise.
Jones is hardly "all the scientific evidence," he's just the
one you
choose to believe. When someone provides an FE you say it's not
scientific. FEA is scientific in that the results are
reproducible, fit the known laws of science and have passed peer
review. The fact you don't understand FEA doesn't make it
nonscientific.

Prove yourself to be normal. Take the time and go
through his paper. Here's the URL

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

I have and I disagree with his findings. I won't explain why
because
you won't understand, you will accuse me of being "unscientific"
or simply dismiss my responses out of hand.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

That's your excuse for the fact that you can't debunk it.
I don't have to. Several people with engineering degrees in the
various groups you have spewed your theories into have done
exactly that. Go back and reread. I said I wouldn't because you
wouldn't understand or you'd accuse me of being unscientific
because that is exactly what happened when the engineering types
tried to explain things to you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Yeah? Where? Show me.
Go look.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Type out the thread's sunject line, and I'll find and read through it

Start with this tread. I am not going to do it for you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




No where in this thread were Jones' 17 arguments debunked

Uhm, Dan, no disrespect intended, but do recall the old adage that
"you are known by the company you keep".

And you've been keeping pretty tight on this one.
Which, I believe, is exactly the kind of attention he wants.

Et tu, Danno?


Richard

I see, it's word games instead of telling the truth that counts.

Then you will not mind the least bit if we place that spendy LEO fuel
depot along with nukes in space, so that WW-III starts up in your
backyard.
-
Brad Guth

"TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
landing.
All I ask is that you SHOW ME THE PROOF!

BTW, I neither believe nor disbelieve in extraterrestrials, but I *do*
believe in crackpots (see above)!
Orval Fairbairn, you're playing those word games again, as well lying
on behalf of covering thy butt again, are you not?

If you can "neither believe nor disbelieve" in anything you elect;
what's the worth of your point?

BTW; WTC shouldn't have 100% structurally failed. It was via
arrogance, greed and a butt-load of incest of what you apparently
admirer the most in the sorts of folks that created those structurally
deficient WTC structures, by way of those individuals which should have
been held accountable for a good many of the otherwise preventable
deaths, that which you and the friends you obviously sleep with that
don't actually give a flying hocky puck of a tinkers damn about, that
is unless it'll put another dollar in your offshore bank account.
-
Brad Guth

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:golLf.23584$Ug4.4830@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:wUkLf.23574$Ug4.702@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:uIjLf.23565$Ug4.14143@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:CLgLf.22529$Ug4.21186@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:

Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not
scientific. There are dozens of things you are not taking into
consideration.
You keep using the word "scientific" without any apparent
understanding of its meaning. Why do you keep demanding
"scientific proof" when you don't even understand the science in
Jones' paper? You said so yourself.
You are putting words in my mouth and twisting their meaning.
Please Stop.
I didn't put anything in your mouth, YOU keep using the term
"scientific proof" and YOU said you don't understand the science
in Jones' paper. It's clear you have no idea what scientific proof
is
and
therefore nothing will ever convince you your conspiracy theory is
full of holes.

Give me a few specfic examples. Where exactly are the holes?



If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should
have no problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not apply.
Go read his paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his
statements.
It's been done several times, but you don't understand it any
more
than you understand Jones.
It's been done? Where???? I know of no physicists or engineers
who debunked Jones' paper.
Several in this thread and others like rec.aviation.homebuilt
have
debunked Jones' paper. You just choose to ignore that fact.

Do me the favor and point me to the thread.



It's only
the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the scientific
evidence
shows otherwise.
Jones is hardly "all the scientific evidence," he's just the
one you
choose to believe. When someone provides an FE you say it's not
scientific. FEA is scientific in that the results are
reproducible, fit the known laws of science and have passed peer
review. The fact you don't understand FEA doesn't make it
nonscientific.

Prove yourself to be normal. Take the time and go
through his paper. Here's the URL

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

I have and I disagree with his findings. I won't explain why
because
you won't understand, you will accuse me of being "unscientific"
or simply dismiss my responses out of hand.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

That's your excuse for the fact that you can't debunk it.
I don't have to. Several people with engineering degrees in the
various groups you have spewed your theories into have done
exactly that. Go back and reread. I said I wouldn't because you
wouldn't understand or you'd accuse me of being unscientific
because that is exactly what happened when the engineering types
tried to explain things to you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Yeah? Where? Show me.
Go look.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Type out the thread's sunject line, and I'll find and read through it
Start with this tread. I am not going to do it for you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




No where in this thread were Jones' 17 arguments debunked

True, but several of his arguments have been.

Look at the bright side: you have learned a squib is not a puff of
smoke, that burning jet fuel can melt steel and that jets don't fly om
diesel fuel.

Dan, U.S. Air Air Force, retired

Richard Lamb wrote:
Uhm, Dan, no disrespect intended, but do recall the old adage that
"you are known by the company you keep".

And you've been keeping pretty tight on this one.
Which, I believe, is exactly the kind of attention he wants.

Et tu, Danno?


Richard

You, sir, are no fun

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote in news:98qLf.24056$Ug4.23277@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:golLf.23584$Ug4.4830@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:wUkLf.23574$Ug4.702@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:uIjLf.23565$Ug4.14143
@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:CLgLf.22529$Ug4.21186@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:

Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not
scientific. There are dozens of things you are not taking into
consideration.
You keep using the word "scientific" without any apparent
understanding of its meaning. Why do you keep demanding
"scientific proof" when you don't even understand the science
in
Jones' paper? You said so yourself.
You are putting words in my mouth and twisting their meaning.
Please Stop.
I didn't put anything in your mouth, YOU keep using the term
"scientific proof" and YOU said you don't understand the science
in Jones' paper. It's clear you have no idea what scientific
proof
is
and
therefore nothing will ever convince you your conspiracy theory
is
full of holes.

Give me a few specfic examples. Where exactly are the holes?



If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should
have no problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not apply.
Go read his paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his
statements.
It's been done several times, but you don't understand it
any
more
than you understand Jones.
It's been done? Where???? I know of no physicists or engineers
who debunked Jones' paper.
Several in this thread and others like rec.aviation.homebuilt
have
debunked Jones' paper. You just choose to ignore that fact.

Do me the favor and point me to the thread.



It's only
the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the scientific
evidence
shows otherwise.
Jones is hardly "all the scientific evidence," he's just the
one you
choose to believe. When someone provides an FE you say it's not
scientific. FEA is scientific in that the results are
reproducible, fit the known laws of science and have passed
peer
review. The fact you don't understand FEA doesn't make it
nonscientific.

Prove yourself to be normal. Take the time and go
through his paper. Here's the URL

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

I have and I disagree with his findings. I won't explain why
because
you won't understand, you will accuse me of being
"unscientific"
or simply dismiss my responses out of hand.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

That's your excuse for the fact that you can't debunk it.
I don't have to. Several people with engineering degrees in
the
various groups you have spewed your theories into have done
exactly that. Go back and reread. I said I wouldn't because you
wouldn't understand or you'd accuse me of being unscientific
because that is exactly what happened when the engineering types
tried to explain things to you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Yeah? Where? Show me.
Go look.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Type out the thread's sunject line, and I'll find and read through
it
Start with this tread. I am not going to do it for you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




No where in this thread were Jones' 17 arguments debunked

True, but several of his arguments have been.

Look at the bright side: you have learned a squib is not a puff of
smoke, that burning jet fuel can melt steel and that jets don't fly om
diesel fuel.

Dan, U.S. Air Air Force, retired



You are not qualified to make any of those statments, and I do not
believe any of them to be true. Besides, you are using them as red
herrings to distort the fact that your case holds no water

In article . com,
"Brad Guth" wrote:

"TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
landing.
All I ask is that you SHOW ME THE PROOF!

BTW, I neither believe nor disbelieve in extraterrestrials, but I *do*
believe in crackpots (see above)!
Orval Fairbairn, you're playing those word games again, as well lying
on behalf of covering thy butt again, are you not?

If you can "neither believe nor disbelieve" in anything you elect;
what's the worth of your point?

BTW; WTC shouldn't have 100% structurally failed. It was via
arrogance, greed and a butt-load of incest of what you apparently
admirer the most in the sorts of folks that created those structurally
deficient WTC structures, by way of those individuals which should have
been held accountable for a good many of the otherwise preventable
deaths, that which you and the friends you obviously sleep with that
don't actually give a flying hocky puck of a tinkers damn about, that
is unless it'll put another dollar in your offshore bank account.
-
Brad Guth

Ah, yes -- another barking moonbat heard from! Is Guthy Gander a member
of the "9/11 Truth Movement, too"?

TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in news:98qLf.24056$Ug4.23277@dukeread12:


TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in news:golLf.23584$Ug4.4830@dukeread12:


TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in news:wUkLf.23574$Ug4.702@dukeread12:


TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in news:uIjLf.23565$Ug4.14143

@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in
news:CLgLf.22529$Ug4.21186@dukeread12:


TRUTH wrote:


Totally illogical reasoning. Your statements are not
scientific. There are dozens of things you are not taking into
consideration.

You keep using the word "scientific" without any apparent
understanding of its meaning. Why do you keep demanding
"scientific proof" when you don't even understand the science

in

Jones' paper? You said so yourself.

You are putting words in my mouth and twisting their meaning.
Please Stop.

I didn't put anything in your mouth, YOU keep using the term
"scientific proof" and YOU said you don't understand the science
in Jones' paper. It's clear you have no idea what scientific

proof

is

and

therefore nothing will ever convince you your conspiracy theory

is

full of holes.

Give me a few specfic examples. Where exactly are the holes?




If you actually believe the government's nonsense, you should
have no problem explaining WHY Jones' evidence does not apply.
Go read his paper.. A PAPER BASED ON SCIENCE, and debunk his
statements.

It's been done several times, but you don't understand it

any

more
than you understand Jones.

It's been done? Where???? I know of no physicists or engineers
who debunked Jones' paper.

Several in this thread and others like rec.aviation.homebuilt
have
debunked Jones' paper. You just choose to ignore that fact.

Do me the favor and point me to the thread.




It's only

the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the scientific

evidence

shows otherwise.

Jones is hardly "all the scientific evidence," he's just the
one you
choose to believe. When someone provides an FE you say it's not
scientific. FEA is scientific in that the results are
reproducible, fit the known laws of science and have passed

peer

review. The fact you don't understand FEA doesn't make it
nonscientific.

Prove yourself to be normal. Take the time and go

through his paper. Here's the URL

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


I have and I disagree with his findings. I won't explain why
because
you won't understand, you will accuse me of being

"unscientific"

or simply dismiss my responses out of hand.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


That's your excuse for the fact that you can't debunk it.

I don't have to. Several people with engineering degrees in

the

various groups you have spewed your theories into have done
exactly that. Go back and reread. I said I wouldn't because you
wouldn't understand or you'd accuse me of being unscientific
because that is exactly what happened when the engineering types
tried to explain things to you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Yeah? Where? Show me.

Go look.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Type out the thread's sunject line, and I'll find and read through

it

Start with this tread. I am not going to do it for you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




No where in this thread were Jones' 17 arguments debunked

True, but several of his arguments have been.

Look at the bright side: you have learned a squib is not a puff of
smoke, that burning jet fuel can melt steel and that jets don't fly om
diesel fuel.

Dan, U.S. Air Air Force, retired




You are not qualified to make any of those statments, and I do not
believe any of them to be true. Besides, you are using them as red
herrings to distort the fact that your case holds no water


Then again you have shown no qualifications to make any statements. You
simply hide behind the comments by an expert in cold fusion and the
visits of Christ to America.

Quit asking about everyone else's qualifications until you show some for
your self.