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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds of
> people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
> events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed on Google
> Video, or downloaded to your computer.
>
>
> The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:

....and the rest of the faculty at his university and in his department
say:

"Professor Jones¹s 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 structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of
Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor
Jones."

[Darkwing]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds of
>> people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
>> events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed on Google
>> Video, or downloaded to your computer.
>>
>>
>> The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:
>
> ...and the rest of the faculty at his university and in his department
> say:
>
> "Professor Jones¹s 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 structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of
> Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor
> Jones."


Next he will be taking on stem cells with renowned South Korean
microbiologist.....

------------------------------------------
DW

[Darkwing]

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> TRUTH > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to
>>>> hundreds of people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the
>>>> government's version of events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar
>>>> can be viewed on Google Video, or downloaded to your computer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:
>>>
>>> ...and the rest of the faculty at his university and in his
>>> department say:
>>>
>>> "Professor Jones¹s 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 structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of
>>> Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor
>>> Jones."
>>
>>
>> Next he will be taking on stem cells with renowned South Korean
>> microbiologist.....
>>
>> ------------------------------------------
>> DW
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> With your comment above, you are obiviously associating 9/11 Truth with
> silly conspiracy theories. Doing this is a predetermination of where
> you're beliefs will be. You cannot argue with science. And if you dispute
> it, you obviously didn't look into it


You're right I can't argue with GOOD science, show me some good REAL science
that is falsifiable and you're on. I HAVE looked into the 9/11 conspiracys
and they are all bull****.

-----------------------------------------------
DW

[Jim Logajan]

TRUTH > wrote:
> FACT: Never before in world history has a steel framed building
> completely collapsed from fire. Not before 9/11, not after 9/11.
> Never!

And never before or since have jets crashed into steel frame buildings.

> FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!

When the buildings next to it collapsed, all the kinetic energy of the
debris radiated outward on impacting the ground. It got hit by a
"shaped" explosion that tore into its base. No mystery except to those
who get their physics second hand.

> FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
> Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall speed,
> into their own footprints.

Steel frame buildings have collapsed in strong earthquakes in precisely
the same manner. Scroll down to "Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame
Office Building" in this set of slides:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/slideset/3/3_slides.shtml

> FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out of
> all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.

Puffs of smoke may be fact - "sign of controlled demolition" is
speculation. So your statement is not a fact. If puffs of smoke had not
come out of the buildings immediately prior to collapse, then THAT would
have been peculiar!

> FACT: Explosives expert Van Romero said just days after 9/11 that he
> could tell all three buildings collapsed from controlled demolition
> just by watching the video footage

That's an opinion. Sure, its a fact he has an opinion, but so what?

> FACT: Romero recanted just a few days later without giving any
> scientific explanation as to why. He was then promoted.

FACT: Now you have to do your own thinking.

> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on the
> entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just happened
> to include terrorist attack insurance

Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that needed
to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know how hard it
is to hide an undertaking like that!?

> FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's insurance
> company told the Discovery Channel that the Towers' massive vertical
> columns all failed simultaneously, and mimicked controlled demolition

Since a steel frame building collapsed in just the same manner in a
Mexican earthquake, we now know that simultaneous collapse does not need
human action.

[TRUTH]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> TRUTH > wrote:
>> FACT: Never before in world history has a steel framed building
>> completely collapsed from fire. Not before 9/11, not after 9/11.
>> Never!



WTC 7 was NOT hit by an airplane

>
> And never before or since have jets crashed into steel frame
> buildings.
>
>> FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!
>
> When the buildings next to it collapsed, all the kinetic energy of the
> debris radiated outward on impacting the ground. It got hit by a
> "shaped" explosion that tore into its base. No mystery except to those
> who get their physics second hand.



totally illogical. It never happened before.



>
>> FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
>> Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall
>> speed, into their own footprints.
>
> Steel frame buildings have collapsed in strong earthquakes in
> precisely the same manner. Scroll down to "Totally Collapsed 21-Story
> Steel Frame Office Building" in this set of slides:
>
> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/slideset/3/3_slides.shtml


None of those building's collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall
speed, into their own footprints. And none of those Mexico City buildings
are steel framed.


>
>> FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out of
>> all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.
>
> Puffs of smoke may be fact - "sign of controlled demolition" is
> speculation. So your statement is not a fact. If puffs of smoke had
> not come out of the buildings immediately prior to collapse, then THAT
> would have been peculiar!


Watch the clips

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html


See the squibs here:

http://st12.startlogic.com/
~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm



>> FACT: Explosives expert Van Romero said just days after 9/11 that he
>> could tell all three buildings collapsed from controlled demolition
>> just by watching the video footage
>
> That's an opinion. Sure, its a fact he has an opinion, but so what?


It's leads to the explanation of controlled demolitions


>
>> FACT: Romero recanted just a few days later without giving any
>> scientific explanation as to why. He was then promoted.
>
> Now you have to do your own thinking.


Yes I do. Perhaps he didn't want to get an anthrax letter like the two
senators who opposed the Patriot Act did.



>
>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on the
>> entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just happened
>> to include terrorist attack insurance
>
> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
> needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
> how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?


Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend before
9/11. Also, Bush's brother Marvin was one of the directors in charge of
WTC security.


>
>> FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's insurance
>> company told the Discovery Channel that the Towers' massive vertical
>> columns all failed simultaneously, and mimicked controlled demolition
>
> Since a steel frame building collapsed in just the same manner in a
> Mexican earthquake, we now know that simultaneous collapse does not
> need human action.
>

This is not true

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

(snipped)
>
> With your comment above, you are obiviously associating 9/11 Truth with
> silly conspiracy theories. Doing this is a predetermination of where
> you're beliefs will be. You cannot argue with science. And if you dispute
> it, you obviously didn't look into it


*WE* are not arguing with science! It is "TRUTH" who is and is losing --
badly!

1) "TRUTH" posits a crackpot professor's idea and claims that it has
been peer reviewed. It has -- but the good professor's peers reject the
story.

2) "TRUTH" posts in aviation newsgroups seeking validation for his (or
some other crackpot's) contention that the hijackers couldn't have flown
the 757s into the buildings and gets 100% response that they could have
done it.

3) "TRUTH" posits that no plane struck the Pentagon -- Purdue University
shows the complete engineering analysis of what happened when the lane
hit the Pentagon.

It is time for "TRUTH", "EagleEye", "Emmanuel Goldstein" and all the
rest of their ilk to go away and hide in their caves in Afghanistan,
with their buddies bin Laden and Zawahiri and await the next B-1 full of
deep penetrators which they all richly deserve.

[TRUTH]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>>
>> With your comment above, you are obiviously associating 9/11 Truth
>> with silly conspiracy theories. Doing this is a predetermination of
>> where you're beliefs will be. You cannot argue with science. And if
>> you dispute it, you obviously didn't look into it
>
>
> *WE* are not arguing with science! It is "TRUTH" who is and is losing
> -- badly!
>
> 1) "TRUTH" posits a crackpot professor's idea and claims that it has
> been peer reviewed. It has -- but the good professor's peers reject
> the story.
>
> 2) "TRUTH" posts in aviation newsgroups seeking validation for his (or
> some other crackpot's) contention that the hijackers couldn't have
> flown the 757s into the buildings and gets 100% response that they
> could have done it.
>
> 3) "TRUTH" posits that no plane struck the Pentagon -- Purdue
> University shows the complete engineering analysis of what happened
> when the lane hit the Pentagon.
>
> It is time for "TRUTH", "EagleEye", "Emmanuel Goldstein" and all the
> rest of their ilk to go away and hide in their caves in Afghanistan,
> with their buddies bin Laden and Zawahiri and await the next B-1 full
> of deep penetrators which they all richly deserve.
>



You are proving yourself to be the idiot. You have not explained ANY of
the scientific evidence. Scienctific laws CANNOT be changed. But since
you think they can be, perhaps you believe in Martians too?

[Jim Logajan]

TRUTH > wrote:
>>> FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!
>>
>> When the buildings next to it collapsed, all the kinetic energy of
>> the debris radiated outward on impacting the ground. It got hit by a
>> "shaped" explosion that tore into its base. No mystery except to
>> those who get their physics second hand.
>
> totally illogical. It never happened before.

You are unqualified to make that determination. As I said before, I have a
physics degree. You don't. Contact the University of Minnesota and ask them
if James Logajan holds a degree in physics if you don't believe me.

I'm using my real name and have nothing to hide. What is your real name,
and where did you get your education? If you insist on arguing from
authority, you need to present your credentials.

>>> FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
>>> Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall
>>> speed, into their own footprints.
>>
>> Steel frame buildings have collapsed in strong earthquakes in
>> precisely the same manner. Scroll down to "Totally Collapsed 21-Story
>> Steel Frame Office Building" in this set of slides:
>>
>> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/slideset/3/3_slides.shtml
>
>
> None of those building's collapsed almost symmetrically, near free
> fall speed, into their own footprints. And none of those Mexico City
> buildings are steel framed.

Which part of "Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building" do
you not understand? Why do you outright lie when presented with facts like
these? The photo shows the remains of a steel framed building that has
clearly collapsed into its own footprint.

>>> FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out
>>> of all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.
>>
>> Puffs of smoke may be fact - "sign of controlled demolition" is
>> speculation. So your statement is not a fact. If puffs of smoke had
>> not come out of the buildings immediately prior to collapse, then
>> THAT would have been peculiar!
>
>
> Watch the clips
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
>
>
> See the squibs here:
>
> http://st12.startlogic.com/
> ~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

1) Explosions would be set to occur before or at the collapse - not after.
2) If the lower floors collapsed first, then the compressed air must escape
somehow - windows would be expected to be blown out as the building
collapses.
3) If there was a conspiracy to blow up the building, it would have been
easier to blow one side of the building - only an incompetent conspirator
would go to the trouble of planting explosives in the upper floors _and_
arrange a symmetrical collapse. Needless hard work.


>>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on
>>> the entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
>>> happened to include terrorist attack insurance
>>
>> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
>> needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
>> how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
>
>
> Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
> before 9/11. Also, Bush's brother Marvin was one of the directors in
> charge of WTC security.

Um, doesn't lack of power make drilling harder? And just how does one
person manage such a vast security breach? This is taking place in the
center of an area that has one of the highest population densities on the
planet. Don't you think that someone might have noticed something? How many
people do you think live and work near there anyway???

>>> FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's
>>> insurance company told the Discovery Channel that the Towers'
>>> massive vertical columns all failed simultaneously, and mimicked
>>> controlled demolition
>>
>> Since a steel frame building collapsed in just the same manner in a
>> Mexican earthquake, we now know that simultaneous collapse does not
>> need human action.
>>
>
> This is not true

Explain why not.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > TRUTH > wrote:
> >
> > (snipped)
> >>
> >> With your comment above, you are obiviously associating 9/11 Truth
> >> with silly conspiracy theories. Doing this is a predetermination of
> >> where you're beliefs will be. You cannot argue with science. And if
> >> you dispute it, you obviously didn't look into it
> >
> >
> > *WE* are not arguing with science! It is "TRUTH" who is and is losing
> > -- badly!
> >
> > 1) "TRUTH" posits a crackpot professor's idea and claims that it has
> > been peer reviewed. It has -- but the good professor's peers reject
> > the story.
> >
> > 2) "TRUTH" posts in aviation newsgroups seeking validation for his (or
> > some other crackpot's) contention that the hijackers couldn't have
> > flown the 757s into the buildings and gets 100% response that they
> > could have done it.
> >
> > 3) "TRUTH" posits that no plane struck the Pentagon -- Purdue
> > University shows the complete engineering analysis of what happened
> > when the lane hit the Pentagon.
> >
> > It is time for "TRUTH", "EagleEye", "Emmanuel Goldstein" and all the
> > rest of their ilk to go away and hide in their caves in Afghanistan,
> > with their buddies bin Laden and Zawahiri and await the next B-1 full
> > of deep penetrators which they all richly deserve.
> >
>
>
>
> You are proving yourself to be the idiot. You have not explained ANY of
> the scientific evidence. Scienctific laws CANNOT be changed. But since
> you think they can be, perhaps you believe in Martians too?

"TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
landing.

BTW, I neither believe nor disbelieve in extraterrestrials, but I *do*
believe in crackpots (see above)!

The scientific facts are that a bunch of savage Wahabbi radicals
hijacked four airliners, killed the crews and proceeded to fly two of
them into the WTC and another into the Pentagon.

The plane that hit the WTC each packed several kilotons equivalent
energy which caused major structural degradation, then the subsequent
fire of 50+ tons of jet fuel, further degraded the structures until they
collapsed.

That sums up the engineering analysis of WTC. The plane that hit the
Pentagon effectively hit a very hard wall, disintegrated and burned up.
Pieces of steel were found at the site, along with minor external damage
at the site.

The passengers on the fourth plane, hearing about the first two, decided
to do something about it and overpowered some of the hijackers. The
hijackers in the cockpit either broke the plane in midair or dived it
into the ground, killing all aboard.

Now, what part of the facts doesn't "TRUTH" understand?

[Richard Lamb]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

snipped to save readers - since the bandwidth question is moot...
>
>
> "TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
> landing.

I have a kill file of exactly - one.
And that's the boy right there, officer!


> The passengers on the fourth plane, hearing about the first two, decided
> to do something about it and overpowered some of the hijackers. The
> hijackers in the cockpit either broke the plane in midair or dived it
> into the ground, killing all aboard.

I'm still rather upset that more honor has not been officially bestowed
on these people. I think of them as our modern Minute Men.

Just a few minutes into an orchestrated attack on our nation, these
people ACTED, and to my mind, became the new American Patriots.



> Now, what part of the facts doesn't "TRUTH" understand?

Well, he wasn't too sharp on Bernoulli.

Still waiting for the inevitable denunciation of the Seven Basic Machines.
I have to admit, this is the first time I've EVER found Wikipedia useful <G>.

For those unfortunate souls in rec.travel.air and rec.aviation.military who
missed the first show....

>
>
>
> But those statements do not apply to controlled demolitions at the WTC
>
>
>What made you think that this is rec.WTC.collapse.conspiracy.for.clueless.
>ragheads.that.dont.yet.understand.the.mechanics.of .a.bicycle?
>
>Hells bells, boy. We have to start your technical education SOMEwhere.
>
>I thought Bernoulli would be a relevant beginning point.
>
>LOTS of hot air, but no lift...
>
>
>Richard
>
>TRUTH wrote:
>
>
> Don't understand that at all. Perhaps if you used scientific evidence....


Grim. Ok, I think we should "start at the very beginning".


Machine
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

In mechanics, a machine is a technological device that is designed to do
something cool. Technologists throughout the ages have identified seven (7)
basic machines from which all other machines can be constructed.

The Seven (7) Basic Machines from which All Other Machines Can be Constructed

1. the screw
2. the wing nut
3. the wheel and hubcap
4. the big heavy rock
5. the pointed stick
6. the VLSI integrated circuit
7. duct tape


Chronology

The first compound machine, a big heavy rock covered with duct tape, was
invented by Og the Cave Person in 500,000 BCE. Later that evening, he figured
out a practical use for this peculiar contraption: clubbing baby proto-kittens
for fun and profit.

The next important innovation was the Rube Goldberg Machine, coincidentally
invented and patented by none other than Leonard Bernstein in 1903. Using a
mere 3,141,592,653 parts (note: some authorities say 3,141,592,655), it was
the first machine ever built that could successfully peel a tangerine by the
power of thought alone.

[TRUTH]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> TRUTH > wrote:
> >>> FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!
>>>
>>> When the buildings next to it collapsed, all the kinetic energy of
>>> the debris radiated outward on impacting the ground. It got hit by a
>>> "shaped" explosion that tore into its base. No mystery except to
>>> those who get their physics second hand.
>>
>> totally illogical. It never happened before.
>
> You are unqualified to make that determination. As I said before, I
> have a physics degree. You don't. Contact the University of Minnesota
> and ask them if James Logajan holds a degree in physics if you don't
> believe me.

I believe you.



> I'm using my real name and have nothing to hide. What is your real
> name, and where did you get your education? If you insist on arguing
> from authority, you need to present your credentials.


With the stuff I'm volunteering in, I would never give my real name. I rely
on credentials of people like Dr Jones who know what *all* the evidence is.
And I try to get people to understand it.

If the evidence is false, it should be explained why it is false.




>>>> FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
>>>> Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall
>>>> speed, into their own footprints.
>>>
>>> Steel frame buildings have collapsed in strong earthquakes in
>>> precisely the same manner. Scroll down to "Totally Collapsed
>>> 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building" in this set of slides:
>>>
>>> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/slideset/3/3_slides.shtml
>>
>>
>> None of those building's collapsed almost symmetrically, near free
>> fall speed, into their own footprints. And none of those Mexico City
>> buildings are steel framed.
>
> Which part of "Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building"
> do you not understand? Why do you outright lie when presented with
> facts like these? The photo shows the remains of a steel framed
> building that has clearly collapsed into its own footprint.


Hmmmm... I will check into that. That was from an earthquake though.




>>>> FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out
>>>> of all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.
>>>
>>> Puffs of smoke may be fact - "sign of controlled demolition" is
>>> speculation. So your statement is not a fact. If puffs of smoke had
>>> not come out of the buildings immediately prior to collapse, then
>>> THAT would have been peculiar!
>>
>>
>> Watch the clips
>>
>> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
>>
>>
>> See the squibs here:
>>
>> http://st12.startlogic.com/
>> ~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
>
> 1) Explosions would be set to occur before or at the collapse - not
> after.

The WTC 7 squibs from the startlogic site above come a few miliseconds
after the collapse starts.


The squibs in the Towers come right below the sections that are collapsing.
And this continues in different sections (on different floors) as the
Towers collapse.


2) If the lower floors collapsed first, then the compressed air
> must escape somehow - windows would be expected to be blown out as the
> building collapses.


Jones proved that the air expulsion theory is discounted. Search his paper
for "expulsion":
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html



> 3) If there was a conspiracy to blow up the building, it would have
> been easier to blow one side of the building - only an incompetent
> conspirator would go to the trouble of planting explosives in the
> upper floors _and_ arrange a symmetrical collapse. Needless hard work.


Yes. And the collapses of all three buildings mimick expert, perfect
controlled demolition.

WTC 7 had several government agencies, and a lot of ENRON documents. It is
theorized that that was one reason to completely destroy the building.


Please watch the video clips of WTC7 collapsing. The fact of controlled
demolition is more than obvious. Compare it to implosions at
www.implosionworld.com



>
>>>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on
>>>> the entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
>>>> happened to include terrorist attack insurance
>>>
>>> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
>>> needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
>>> how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
>>
>>
>> Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
>> before 9/11. Also, Bush's brother Marvin was one of the directors in
>> charge of WTC security.
>
> Um, doesn't lack of power make drilling harder? And just how does one
> person manage such a vast security breach? This is taking place in the
> center of an area that has one of the highest population densities on
> the planet. Don't you think that someone might have noticed something?
> How many people do you think live and work near there anyway???


What you said is all true. We will never know exactly how it was done.


>
>>>> FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's
>>>> insurance company told the Discovery Channel that the Towers'
>>>> massive vertical columns all failed simultaneously, and mimicked
>>>> controlled demolition
>>>
>>> Since a steel frame building collapsed in just the same manner in a
>>> Mexican earthquake, we now know that simultaneous collapse does not
>>> need human action.
>>>
>>
>> This is not true
>
> Explain why not.


That must have been the only steel framed building to ever completely
collapse from anything other than controlled demolition. Still, it did not
collapse from fire, and we don't know how long it took for that collapse to
occur. For all we know, it could have taken hours. And, although I admit
not being an expert, I would bet it could not really be classified as a
total collapse.


You're a physicist? Please take the time to read Jones' paper in it's
entirely. Also take the other information into consideration. If you're a
physicist, and you look at the real information, you should have problem
seeing it.

[TRUTH]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in news:orfairbairn-
:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > TRUTH > wrote:
>> >
>> > (snipped)
>> >>
>> >> With your comment above, you are obiviously associating 9/11 Truth
>> >> with silly conspiracy theories. Doing this is a predetermination of
>> >> where you're beliefs will be. You cannot argue with science. And if
>> >> you dispute it, you obviously didn't look into it
>> >
>> >
>> > *WE* are not arguing with science! It is "TRUTH" who is and is
losing
>> > -- badly!
>> >
>> > 1) "TRUTH" posits a crackpot professor's idea and claims that it has
>> > been peer reviewed. It has -- but the good professor's peers reject
>> > the story.
>> >
>> > 2) "TRUTH" posts in aviation newsgroups seeking validation for his
(or
>> > some other crackpot's) contention that the hijackers couldn't have
>> > flown the 757s into the buildings and gets 100% response that they
>> > could have done it.
>> >
>> > 3) "TRUTH" posits that no plane struck the Pentagon -- Purdue
>> > University shows the complete engineering analysis of what happened
>> > when the lane hit the Pentagon.
>> >
>> > It is time for "TRUTH", "EagleEye", "Emmanuel Goldstein" and all the
>> > rest of their ilk to go away and hide in their caves in Afghanistan,
>> > with their buddies bin Laden and Zawahiri and await the next B-1
full
>> > of deep penetrators which they all richly deserve.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> You are proving yourself to be the idiot. You have not explained ANY
of
>> the scientific evidence. Scienctific laws CANNOT be changed. But since
>> you think they can be, perhaps you believe in Martians too?
>
> "TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
> landing.
>
> BTW, I neither believe nor disbelieve in extraterrestrials, but I *do*
> believe in crackpots (see above)!
>
> The scientific facts are that a bunch of savage Wahabbi radicals
> hijacked four airliners, killed the crews and proceeded to fly two of
> them into the WTC and another into the Pentagon.
>
> The plane that hit the WTC each packed several kilotons equivalent
> energy which caused major structural degradation, then the subsequent
> fire of 50+ tons of jet fuel, further degraded the structures until
they
> collapsed.
>
> That sums up the engineering analysis of WTC. The plane that hit the
> Pentagon effectively hit a very hard wall, disintegrated and burned up.
> Pieces of steel were found at the site, along with minor external
damage
> at the site.
>
> The passengers on the fourth plane, hearing about the first two,
decided
> to do something about it and overpowered some of the hijackers. The
> hijackers in the cockpit either broke the plane in midair or dived it
> into the ground, killing all aboard.
>
> Now, what part of the facts doesn't "TRUTH" understand?
>



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


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 only
the crackpots who believe absurd ideas when all the scientific evidence
shows otherwise. 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

[TRUTH]

It's obvious that you don't want to face the truth! You're brain can't
handle the truth so it resorts to childish, unrelated, irrational
nonnsense! You're making an idiot out of yourselves!





Richard Lamb > wrote in
nk.net:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> snipped to save readers - since the bandwidth question is moot...
>>
>>
>> "TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
>> landing.
>
> I have a kill file of exactly - one.
> And that's the boy right there, officer!
>
>
>> The passengers on the fourth plane, hearing about the first two,
>> decided to do something about it and overpowered some of the
>> hijackers. The hijackers in the cockpit either broke the plane in
>> midair or dived it into the ground, killing all aboard.
>
> I'm still rather upset that more honor has not been officially
> bestowed on these people. I think of them as our modern Minute Men.
>
> Just a few minutes into an orchestrated attack on our nation, these
> people ACTED, and to my mind, became the new American Patriots.
>
>
>
>> Now, what part of the facts doesn't "TRUTH" understand?
>
> Well, he wasn't too sharp on Bernoulli.
>
> Still waiting for the inevitable denunciation of the Seven Basic
> Machines. I have to admit, this is the first time I've EVER found
> Wikipedia useful <G>.
>
> For those unfortunate souls in rec.travel.air and
> rec.aviation.military who missed the first show....
>
> >
> >
> >
> > But those statements do not apply to controlled demolitions at the
> > WTC
> >
> >
> >What made you think that this is
> >rec.WTC.collapse.conspiracy.for.clueless.
> >ragheads.that.dont.yet.understand.the.mechanics.of .a.bicycle?
> >
> >Hells bells, boy. We have to start your technical education
> >SOMEwhere.
> >
> >I thought Bernoulli would be a relevant beginning point.
> >
> >LOTS of hot air, but no lift...
> >
> >
> >Richard
> >
> >TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >
> > Don't understand that at all. Perhaps if you used scientific
> > evidence....
>
>
> Grim. Ok, I think we should "start at the very beginning".
>
>
> Machine
> From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
>
> In mechanics, a machine is a technological device that is designed to
> do something cool. Technologists throughout the ages have identified
> seven (7) basic machines from which all other machines can be
> constructed.
>
> The Seven (7) Basic Machines from which All Other Machines Can be
> Constructed
>
> 1. the screw
> 2. the wing nut
> 3. the wheel and hubcap
> 4. the big heavy rock
> 5. the pointed stick
> 6. the VLSI integrated circuit
> 7. duct tape
>
>
> Chronology
>
> The first compound machine, a big heavy rock covered with duct tape,
> was invented by Og the Cave Person in 500,000 BCE. Later that evening,
> he figured out a practical use for this peculiar contraption: clubbing
> baby proto-kittens for fun and profit.
>
> The next important innovation was the Rube Goldberg Machine,
> coincidentally invented and patented by none other than Leonard
> Bernstein in 1903. Using a mere 3,141,592,653 parts (note: some
> authorities say 3,141,592,655), it was the first machine ever built
> that could successfully peel a tangerine by the power of thought
> alone.
>
>

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote in

>
>
>>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on the
>>> entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just happened
>>> to include terrorist attack insurance
>> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
>> needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
>> how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
>
>
> Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend before
> 9/11.

Obviously you don't. Take a look at any major controlled demolition.
It takes weeks of preparation that includes removal of walls, windows
and structural members as well as making cuts in steel supports,
drilling of holes and cutting rebar in concrete members, installing
charges and det cord etc. Very little of which can be done without all
kinds of people noticing. How come no one noticed the debris being
hauled away before 9-11? Det cord is orange or bright red and about 3/8"
in diameter and no one noticed many hundreds of yards of this stuff
strung about? You keep referring to squibs, do you know what they are or
the difference between a squib and a shaped charge?

As for the "puffs of smoke" jetting out from windows below the
falling floors they would be from windows being blown out by air driven
by the mass of falling floors. Same with debris going horizontal.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

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.

>
>
> 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 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

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:f%fLf.22178$Ug4.21685@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>
>>
>>
>>>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on
the
>>>> entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just happened
>>>> to include terrorist attack insurance
>>> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
>>> needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
>>> how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
>>
>>
>> Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
before
>> 9/11.
>
> Obviously you don't. Take a look at any major controlled
demolition.
> It takes weeks of preparation that includes removal of walls, windows
> and structural members as well as making cuts in steel supports,
> drilling of holes and cutting rebar in concrete members, installing
> charges and det cord etc. Very little of which can be done without all
> kinds of people noticing. How come no one noticed the debris being
> hauled away before 9-11? Det cord is orange or bright red and about
3/8"
> in diameter and no one noticed many hundreds of yards of this stuff
> strung about? You keep referring to squibs, do you know what they are
or
> the difference between a squib and a shaped charge?
>
> As for the "puffs of smoke" jetting out from windows below the
> falling floors they would be from windows being blown out by air driven
> by the mass of falling floors. Same with debris going horizontal.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Yes it does take weeks. Bu that fact does not debunk the evidence.

Jones' refuted the "air-expulsion due to floors collapsing" theory of the
squibs. See his paper for the details.

Have you seen the squibs yourself? There are video clips at the bottom of
this page:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

[TRUTH]

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.


>
>>
>>
>> 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.




>
> 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.

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:f%fLf.22178$Ug4.21685@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>>>
>>>>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on
> the
>>>>> entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just happened
>>>>> to include terrorist attack insurance
>>>> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
>>>> needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
>>>> how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
>>>
>>> Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
> before
>>> 9/11.
>> Obviously you don't. Take a look at any major controlled
> demolition.
>> It takes weeks of preparation that includes removal of walls, windows
>> and structural members as well as making cuts in steel supports,
>> drilling of holes and cutting rebar in concrete members, installing
>> charges and det cord etc. Very little of which can be done without all
>> kinds of people noticing. How come no one noticed the debris being
>> hauled away before 9-11? Det cord is orange or bright red and about
> 3/8"
>> in diameter and no one noticed many hundreds of yards of this stuff
>> strung about? You keep referring to squibs, do you know what they are
> or
>> the difference between a squib and a shaped charge?
>>
>> As for the "puffs of smoke" jetting out from windows below the
>> falling floors they would be from windows being blown out by air driven
>> by the mass of falling floors. Same with debris going horizontal.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
> Yes it does take weeks. Bu that fact does not debunk the evidence.

OK, then answer the rest of what I said. How come no one noticed the
removed walls, the debris being carted off, the exposed supports, the
hundreds of yards of det cord, the prepped structural members etc? At
the very least everyone who had access to the underground parking lots
would have noticed the precut supports.

>
> Jones' refuted the "air-expulsion due to floors collapsing" theory of the
> squibs. See his paper for the details.

I have and he doesn't know what he is talking about. Squibs are more
commonly used for special effects, ejection seats and small jobs like that.
>
> Have you seen the squibs yourself? There are video clips at the bottom of
> this page:
> http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

OK, save me the trouble of watching all the clips and tell me which
video shows these "squibs." I am having trouble visualizing how squibs
would be used in place of shaped charges and kickers.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

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.

>
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
>
>
>> 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

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:AzjLf.23564$Ug4.7379@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:f%fLf.22178$Ug4.21685@dukeread12:
>>
>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>>>>
>>>>>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on
>> the
>>>>>> entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
>>>>>> happened to include terrorist attack insurance
>>>>> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
>>>>> needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you
>>>>> know how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
>>>>
>>>> Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
>> before
>>>> 9/11.
>>> Obviously you don't. Take a look at any major controlled
>> demolition.
>>> It takes weeks of preparation that includes removal of walls,
>>> windows and structural members as well as making cuts in steel
>>> supports, drilling of holes and cutting rebar in concrete members,
>>> installing charges and det cord etc. Very little of which can be
>>> done without all kinds of people noticing. How come no one noticed
>>> the debris being hauled away before 9-11? Det cord is orange or
>>> bright red and about
>> 3/8"
>>> in diameter and no one noticed many hundreds of yards of this stuff
>>> strung about? You keep referring to squibs, do you know what they
>>> are
>> or
>>> the difference between a squib and a shaped charge?
>>>
>>> As for the "puffs of smoke" jetting out from windows below the
>>> falling floors they would be from windows being blown out by air
>>> driven by the mass of falling floors. Same with debris going
>>> horizontal.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes it does take weeks. Bu that fact does not debunk the evidence.
>
> OK, then answer the rest of what I said. How come no one noticed
> the
> removed walls, the debris being carted off, the exposed supports, the
> hundreds of yards of det cord, the prepped structural members etc? At
> the very least everyone who had access to the underground parking lots
> would have noticed the precut supports.


I have no idea. Any idea would be pure speculation, and would not prove
anything.



>>
>> Jones' refuted the "air-expulsion due to floors collapsing" theory of
>> the squibs. See his paper for the details.
>
> I have and he doesn't know what he is talking about. Squibs are
> more
> commonly used for special effects, ejection seats and small jobs like
> that.


You might not understand what he means by squibs. Squibs are the puffs of
smoke caused by the controlled charges. Take a look at the videos on
www.implosionworld.com and compare them.


>>
>> Have you seen the squibs yourself? There are video clips at the
>> bottom of this page:
>> http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
>
> OK, save me the trouble of watching all the clips and tell me which
> video shows these "squibs." I am having trouble visualizing how squibs
> would be used in place of shaped charges and kickers.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>



Okay...

WTC 7 (NOT hit by an airplane):
http://tinyurl.com/eygeh

North Tower Squibs:
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-dets-1-marked.avi

South Tower Squibs:
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc2-dets-1-marked.avi

[Johnny Bravo]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:38:37 -0000, Jim Logajan > wrote:

>>>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on
>>>> the entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
>>>> happened to include terrorist attack insurance
>>>
>>> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
>>> needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you know
>>> how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
>>
>>
>> Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
>> before 9/11. Also, Bush's brother Marvin was one of the directors in
>> charge of WTC security.
>
>Um, doesn't lack of power make drilling harder? And just how does one
>person manage such a vast security breach? This is taking place in the
>center of an area that has one of the highest population densities on the
>planet. Don't you think that someone might have noticed something? How many
>people do you think live and work near there anyway???

There is a couple of massive flaws in the WTC-7 preset demolition theory.

1) Why bother blowing up WTC-7 at all? Do they honestly expect us to believe
that the government actually sat down and said at a meeting "You know, taking
out one of America's most prominent landmarks and killing 3,000 people just
won't be enough to enrage the public. But I've got a plan, we'll also blow up
WTC-7, an empty building that 99.999% of the people in the country never even
heard of to ensure the outrage we need."

2) Why set up a building to be demolished if no plane is going to hit it? There
is no way that they knew in advance that large pieces of debris would hit WTC-7
and start a fire that burned uncontrolled for half a day. What would have been
the explanation if the building was blown up and it hadn't suffered any
significant damage? None of the surrounding buildings was blown up after
suffering no significant damage and none of them were found with tons of preset
explosives.

The only possible logical explanation would be that WTC-7 was set for
demoltion that very day, after the planes hit. Hundreds of highly trained
demolitons specialists snuck tons of explosives into a smoke filled burning
building and executed a controlled demolition in 7 hours, in the midst of one of
the most intensive disaster recovery procedures ever mounted in the US. Not
only did they manage this incredible feat completely undetected, not one of the
hundreds of people involved ever talked about it. And this was done for
absolutely no reason at all, see #1 above.

[TRUTH]

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.

[mrtravel]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

>
> "TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
> landing.
>

If TRUTH visited Austria, he would probably be imprisoned for his
Holocaust beliefs.

[mrtravel]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

>
> "TRUTH" is starting to sound like "Brad Guth," who denies the lunar
> landing.
>

If TRUTH visited Austria, he would probably be imprisoned for his
Holocaust beliefs.

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:AzjLf.23564$Ug4.7379@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in news:f%fLf.22178$Ug4.21685@dukeread12:
>>>
>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>>>>>
>>>>>>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on
>>> the
>>>>>>> entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
>>>>>>> happened to include terrorist attack insurance
>>>>>> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives that
>>>>>> needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do you
>>>>>> know how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
>>>>> Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
>>> before
>>>>> 9/11.
>>>> Obviously you don't. Take a look at any major controlled
>>> demolition.
>>>> It takes weeks of preparation that includes removal of walls,
>>>> windows and structural members as well as making cuts in steel
>>>> supports, drilling of holes and cutting rebar in concrete members,
>>>> installing charges and det cord etc. Very little of which can be
>>>> done without all kinds of people noticing. How come no one noticed
>>>> the debris being hauled away before 9-11? Det cord is orange or
>>>> bright red and about
>>> 3/8"
>>>> in diameter and no one noticed many hundreds of yards of this stuff
>>>> strung about? You keep referring to squibs, do you know what they
>>>> are
>>> or
>>>> the difference between a squib and a shaped charge?
>>>>
>>>> As for the "puffs of smoke" jetting out from windows below the
>>>> falling floors they would be from windows being blown out by air
>>>> driven by the mass of falling floors. Same with debris going
>>>> horizontal.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes it does take weeks. Bu that fact does not debunk the evidence.
>> OK, then answer the rest of what I said. How come no one noticed
>> the
>> removed walls, the debris being carted off, the exposed supports, the
>> hundreds of yards of det cord, the prepped structural members etc? At
>> the very least everyone who had access to the underground parking lots
>> would have noticed the precut supports.
>
>
> I have no idea. Any idea would be pure speculation, and would not prove
> anything.
>
>
>
>>> Jones' refuted the "air-expulsion due to floors collapsing" theory of
>>> the squibs. See his paper for the details.
>> I have and he doesn't know what he is talking about. Squibs are
>> more
>> commonly used for special effects, ejection seats and small jobs like
>> that.
>
>
> You might not understand what he means by squibs. Squibs are the puffs of
> smoke caused by the controlled charges. Take a look at the videos on
> www.implosionworld.com and compare them.
>
>
>>> Have you seen the squibs yourself? There are video clips at the
>>> bottom of this page:
>>> http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
>> OK, save me the trouble of watching all the clips and tell me which
>> video shows these "squibs." I am having trouble visualizing how squibs
>> would be used in place of shaped charges and kickers.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
> Okay...
>
> WTC 7 (NOT hit by an airplane):
> http://tinyurl.com/eygeh

WTC 7 has been explained satisfactorily elsewhere in this thread.

>
> North Tower Squibs:
> http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-dets-1-marked.avi
>
> South Tower Squibs:
> http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc2-dets-1-marked.avi

Neither video plays for me. Do they show the actual explosive devices
or just the puffs of smoke? If it's the latter they don't provide proof
of explosives.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

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

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:vTkLf.23573$Ug4.4522@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:AzjLf.23564$Ug4.7379@dukeread12:
>>
>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>> Dan > wrote in news:f%fLf.22178$Ug4.21685@dukeread12:
>>>>
>>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease
>>>>>>>> on
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
>>>>>>>> happened to include terrorist attack insurance
>>>>>>> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives
>>>>>>> that needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do
>>>>>>> you know how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
>>>>>> Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
>>>> before
>>>>>> 9/11.
>>>>> Obviously you don't. Take a look at any major controlled
>>>> demolition.
>>>>> It takes weeks of preparation that includes removal of walls,
>>>>> windows and structural members as well as making cuts in steel
>>>>> supports, drilling of holes and cutting rebar in concrete members,
>>>>> installing charges and det cord etc. Very little of which can be
>>>>> done without all kinds of people noticing. How come no one noticed
>>>>> the debris being hauled away before 9-11? Det cord is orange or
>>>>> bright red and about
>>>> 3/8"
>>>>> in diameter and no one noticed many hundreds of yards of this
>>>>> stuff strung about? You keep referring to squibs, do you know what
>>>>> they are
>>>> or
>>>>> the difference between a squib and a shaped charge?
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the "puffs of smoke" jetting out from windows below
>>>>> the
>>>>> falling floors they would be from windows being blown out by air
>>>>> driven by the mass of falling floors. Same with debris going
>>>>> horizontal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes it does take weeks. Bu that fact does not debunk the evidence.
>>> OK, then answer the rest of what I said. How come no one noticed
>>> the
>>> removed walls, the debris being carted off, the exposed supports,
>>> the hundreds of yards of det cord, the prepped structural members
>>> etc? At the very least everyone who had access to the underground
>>> parking lots would have noticed the precut supports.
>>
>>
>> I have no idea. Any idea would be pure speculation, and would not
>> prove anything.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Jones' refuted the "air-expulsion due to floors collapsing" theory
>>>> of the squibs. See his paper for the details.
>>> I have and he doesn't know what he is talking about. Squibs are
>>> more
>>> commonly used for special effects, ejection seats and small jobs
>>> like that.
>>
>>
>> You might not understand what he means by squibs. Squibs are the
>> puffs of smoke caused by the controlled charges. Take a look at the
>> videos on www.implosionworld.com and compare them.
>>
>>
>>>> Have you seen the squibs yourself? There are video clips at the
>>>> bottom of this page:
>>>> http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
>>> OK, save me the trouble of watching all the clips and tell me
>>> which
>>> video shows these "squibs." I am having trouble visualizing how
>>> squibs would be used in place of shaped charges and kickers.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Okay...
>>
>> WTC 7 (NOT hit by an airplane):
>> http://tinyurl.com/eygeh
>
> WTC 7 has been explained satisfactorily elsewhere in this thread.



If you really think that, then you are delusional. All the evidence that
has been shown proves WTC7 to be brought down by controlled demolition.
If you think otherwise, then copy and paste the info below:




>
>>
>> North Tower Squibs:
>> http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-dets-1-marked.avi
>>
>> South Tower Squibs:
>> http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc2-dets-1-marked.avi
>
> Neither video plays for me. Do they show the actual explosive
> devices
> or just the puffs of smoke? If it's the latter they don't provide
> proof of explosives.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>


I never said the puffs of smoke "prove" anything

[TRUTH]

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

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:vTkLf.23573$Ug4.4522@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in news:AzjLf.23564$Ug4.7379@dukeread12:
>>>
>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>> Dan > wrote in news:f%fLf.22178$Ug4.21685@dukeread12:
>>>>>
>>>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>>>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just
>>>>>>>>> happened to include terrorist attack insurance
>>>>>>>> Wouldn't all the drilling, wiring, and planting of explosives
>>>>>>>> that needed to be done to WTC 7 have been noticed by people? Do
>>>>>>>> you know how hard it is to hide an undertaking like that!?
>>>>>>> Yes I do. In the South Tower, there was a power down the weekend
>>>>> before
>>>>>>> 9/11.
>>>>>> Obviously you don't. Take a look at any major controlled
>>>>> demolition.
>>>>>> It takes weeks of preparation that includes removal of walls,
>>>>>> windows and structural members as well as making cuts in steel
>>>>>> supports, drilling of holes and cutting rebar in concrete members,
>>>>>> installing charges and det cord etc. Very little of which can be
>>>>>> done without all kinds of people noticing. How come no one noticed
>>>>>> the debris being hauled away before 9-11? Det cord is orange or
>>>>>> bright red and about
>>>>> 3/8"
>>>>>> in diameter and no one noticed many hundreds of yards of this
>>>>>> stuff strung about? You keep referring to squibs, do you know what
>>>>>> they are
>>>>> or
>>>>>> the difference between a squib and a shaped charge?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the "puffs of smoke" jetting out from windows below
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> falling floors they would be from windows being blown out by air
>>>>>> driven by the mass of falling floors. Same with debris going
>>>>>> horizontal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it does take weeks. Bu that fact does not debunk the evidence.
>>>> OK, then answer the rest of what I said. How come no one noticed
>>>> the
>>>> removed walls, the debris being carted off, the exposed supports,
>>>> the hundreds of yards of det cord, the prepped structural members
>>>> etc? At the very least everyone who had access to the underground
>>>> parking lots would have noticed the precut supports.
>>>
>>> I have no idea. Any idea would be pure speculation, and would not
>>> prove anything.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Jones' refuted the "air-expulsion due to floors collapsing" theory
>>>>> of the squibs. See his paper for the details.
>>>> I have and he doesn't know what he is talking about. Squibs are
>>>> more
>>>> commonly used for special effects, ejection seats and small jobs
>>>> like that.
>>>
>>> You might not understand what he means by squibs. Squibs are the
>>> puffs of smoke caused by the controlled charges. Take a look at the
>>> videos on www.implosionworld.com and compare them.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Have you seen the squibs yourself? There are video clips at the
>>>>> bottom of this page:
>>>>> http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
>>>> OK, save me the trouble of watching all the clips and tell me
>>>> which
>>>> video shows these "squibs." I am having trouble visualizing how
>>>> squibs would be used in place of shaped charges and kickers.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay...
>>>
>>> WTC 7 (NOT hit by an airplane):
>>> http://tinyurl.com/eygeh
>> WTC 7 has been explained satisfactorily elsewhere in this thread.
>
>
>
> If you really think that, then you are delusional. All the evidence that
> has been shown proves WTC7 to be brought down by controlled demolition.
> If you think otherwise, then copy and paste the info below:
>
>
>
>
>>> North Tower Squibs:
>>> http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-dets-1-marked.avi
>>>
>>> South Tower Squibs:
>>> http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc2-dets-1-marked.avi
>> Neither video plays for me. Do they show the actual explosive
>> devices
>> or just the puffs of smoke? If it's the latter they don't provide
>> proof of explosives.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
> 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

[Dan]

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

[TRUTH]

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.

[TRUTH]

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

[Richard Lamb]

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

[Brad Guth]

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

[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

[Dan]

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

[Dan]

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

[TRUTH]

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

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article om>,
"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"?

[Frank F. Matthews]

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.

[TRUTH]

"Frank F. Matthews" > wrote in
:

>
>
> 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.
>


I use his statements because he's a physicist who has been giving
seminars and convincing hundreds and hundreds of people the past few
months. His expert opinion are convincing to many.


I myself knew the WTC was professionaly demolished way before I heard of
Jones. Just looking at ALL the evidence and putting it in context makes
it crystal clear.


btw, why were two of the anthrax letters sent to senators who opposed the
Patriot act?> Why was the White House put on Cipro *before* those letters
were delivered?

Take a look in the mirror and admit that you have been duped by an evil
government

[Toni Virta]

"Johnny Bravo" > wrote in message
...

> 1) Why bother blowing up WTC-7 at all? Do they honestly expect
us to believe
> that the government actually sat down and said at a meeting "You
know, taking
> out one of America's most prominent landmarks and killing 3,000
people just
> won't be enough to enrage the public. But I've got a plan, we'll
also blow up
> WTC-7, an empty building that 99.999% of the people in the country
never even
> heard of to ensure the outrage we need."

An excellent point, sir.

When I read the first 9/11 conspiracy theory web pages (a long time
ago, right when they started appearing), it was a fairly common
belief, that WTC-7 was the location where the "remotely controlled
planes" that hit the towers were controlled from. And that WTC-7 was
demolished to hide the fact that the building was used as a base of
operations.

Some time later, almost all of these speculations disappeared. I
always thought it was because people were asking more and more, why
the base of operations would be right next to ground zero. Wouldn't
it be more logical (and safer to people and the secret) to put it
somewhere else where it would be still hidden after the planes hit?

It may be, that the WTC-7 demolition theory just kept on going even
though the building was not considered as a base any more?

Personally I have always wondered, *how many* people would have to
know about a job of this magnitude, had it indeed been a government
job. I find it extremely unlikely, that a secret of such magnitude
could be kept by so many people.

I'm, a conspiracy buff, I always want to hear different scenarios
and not just jump into the easiest or official solution. Still I've
always thought, that these 9/11 theories are extremely hard to
believe, when you consider the magnitude of the job. And even if it
was doable, the events and the reasons behind them in these actions
do not seem logical. Especially like the collapse of WTC-7. If it
was indeed a government job, why demolish that building too?

TVirta

[Dan]

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

Main Entry: squib
Pronunciation: 'skwib'
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
1 a : a short humorous or satiric writing or speech
b : a short news item; especially : FILLER
2 a : a small firecracker
b : a broken firecracker in which the powder burns with a fizz
3 : a small electric or pyrotechnic device used to ignite a charge

Source: Merriam-Webster

As for knowing what jet fuel is I am far more qualified than you ever
will be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Greg Schuler]

I can't take it any longer - I did it. I planned the whole thing and
with the benefit of my super secret German technology (buffered with
some the aliens have been kind enough to lend) I master-minded the
whole thing.

The actual scenario of events is as follows:

Using stealth technology I wrapped the entire WTC complex in det cord
and thermite. No one saw because I was invisible.
Using refined German technology I piloted the aircraft into the towers
from, you guessed it, my secret underground base in Antarctica.
I "pulled" down the buildings from the same base using fiber optics and
a good old fashion plunger - boom!
I then took down WTC 7 because someone at the secret base said it
couldn't be done. However, using alien technology I was able to
immediately re-wrap the building in det cord (it was easy since
everyone was looking at the flaming towers, they never saw me) and then
"pull" it down.
After that, using mind control substances and subliminal messages
(thank goodness for that fluoride in the water) I was able to make
everyone ignore logic and the available evidence. To continue the
charade, I am using the same substances and moving the "Truth" movement
forward. They are a very solid brand of useful idiotis - Stalin would
be proud.

Where's my proof - hey, I am posting on Usenet, I don't need proof.
Anyone wants to challenge me I am sure the various supports of alien
technology, secret Nazi bases and the super advanced technology the
Germans have developed will instantly spring to my defense. As well as
those that believe an organization that can't even process a medical
claims form without fouling up would be able to carry out something
like this.

And it was for the oil, oh yes a big ball of oil. I won't spill the
beans on what we did with it other to say that you'd be surprised what
a space ship can fly on. Oh, and of course because we in the secret
government agencies actually have to start and maintain wars becuase if
we don't, we get pinged on our annual reviews. So when we go after
Iran, you'll now someone has to make points with boss. Who is usually
shrouded in shadows and cigarette smoke.

So judos to the Truth Movement - you got me.

I am also available for kid's parties too - you should see the balloon
animals I can make.

[Greg Schuler]

Oh, almost forgot - the Pentagon thing. See we had this V12 hanging
around the underground layer (in Antarctica, of course) and it was
always getting in the way and taking up space, so we decided, let's use
this. A quick paint job, some voice synthesizer technology (if you ever
touched a penny, we can mimick you completely - seriously, why else
keep them in circulation?) and a few bits of alient goodness and voila!
Unfortunately, someone sent me an IM duing the flight and it screwed me
up so we just missed the target. There was some debate about whether to
unleash the coal dust cannon and just obliterate Washington DC, but
well, we'd have the haul the thing out and plug it in and it was
already a big day, so we're saving that.

Where's my proof you ask? It's Usenet, I don't need proof, just
strawmen and personal attacks. So if anyone doubts me then they are
blind to the facts as I presented them and are obviously social
miscreants.

Keep up the good work, TRUTH - and keep drinking the water! Tell Dr.
Jones that his checks are in the mail.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Toni Virta" > wrote:

> I'm, a conspiracy buff, I always want to hear different scenarios
> and not just jump into the easiest or official solution. Still I've
> always thought, that these 9/11 theories are extremely hard to
> believe, when you consider the magnitude of the job. And even if it
> was doable, the events and the reasons behind them in these actions
> do not seem logical. Especially like the collapse of WTC-7. If it
> was indeed a government job, why demolish that building too?

The thing the nuts keep skipping over is that since WTC-7 has so heavily
damaged from fire and debris, they were already talking about having to
go in and tear it down *before* it fell in on itself.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Dan > wrote in news:98qLf.24056$Ug4.23277@dukeread12:
>
> > 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.
>
> You are not qualified to make any of those statments, and I do not
> believe any of them to be true.

On the other hand, a squib is *not* a puff of smoke (although squibs
*can* make puffs of smoke), burning jet fuel *can* melt quite a lot of
things, including steel (which is why they don't use structural steel in
jet engines), and jets fly on jet fuel, which is mostly kerosene, not
diesel.

Dan, by the way, *is* qualified to make those statements, most
specifically the last two. You might check the last of the newsgroups
you're cross-posting this to - most of the denizens of
rec.aviation.military have some experience in actual aviation, either in
flying, in maintaining, of in building jets.

Of all of the places to pick to say stupid things about jet aircraft,
r.a.m is one of the worst you could have picked...

[Johnny Bravo]

On 24 Feb 2006 05:28:15 -0800, "Greg Schuler" > wrote:

>Where's my proof - hey, I am posting on Usenet, I don't need proof.

That's comedy gold right there. :)

[TRUTH]

Chad Irby > wrote in news:cirby-CB1EB0.09471124022006
@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:

> In article >,
> "Toni Virta" > wrote:
>
>> I'm, a conspiracy buff, I always want to hear different scenarios
>> and not just jump into the easiest or official solution. Still I've
>> always thought, that these 9/11 theories are extremely hard to
>> believe, when you consider the magnitude of the job. And even if it
>> was doable, the events and the reasons behind them in these actions
>> do not seem logical. Especially like the collapse of WTC-7. If it
>> was indeed a government job, why demolish that building too?
>
> The thing the nuts keep skipping over is that since WTC-7 has so
heavily
> damaged from fire and debris, they were already talking about having to
> go in and tear it down *before* it fell in on itself.
>



From Jones' paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as
huge trusses, arranged non-symmetrically, along with some fifty-seven
perimeter columns, as indicated in the diagram below (FEMA, 2002, chapter
5; NIST, 2005).


[See This Diagram]

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h1.jpg



Diagram showing steel-column arrangement in WTC 7, view looking down on
the roof. Circled columns were possibly damaged due to debris from WTC 1
collapse, some 350 feet away (NIST, 2005) so the damage was clearly non-
symmetrical, and evidently, none of the core columns was severed by
falling debris. WTC 7 was never hit by a plane

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> From Jones' paper:
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
> There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as
> huge trusses, arranged non-symmetrically, along with some fifty-seven
> perimeter columns, as indicated in the diagram below (FEMA, 2002, chapter
> 5; NIST, 2005).

Yes, and when the fire burned for a wile, those 24 "huge" (not that
huge, actually) columns got moderately hot, they lost enough strength to
fail.

The thing about huge building like these is that when one part fails,
the rest of the building is almost never designed to handle the
asymmetrical stresses from that failure. Knocking a skyscraper down is
easy, knocking it down *accurately* is the hard part.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:04:54 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article >,
> >> TRUTH > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to
> >>> hundreds of people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the
> >>> government's version of events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar
> >>> can be viewed on Google Video, or downloaded to your computer.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:
> >>
> >> ...and the rest of the faculty at his university and in his
> >> department say:
> >>
> >> "Professor Jones¹s 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 structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of
> >> Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor
> >> Jones."
> >
> >
> > Next he will be taking on stem cells with renowned South Korean
> > microbiologist.....
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> > DW
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> With your comment above, you are obiviously associating 9/11 Truth with
> silly conspiracy theories. Doing this is a predetermination of where
> you're beliefs will be. You cannot argue with science. And if you dispute
> it, you obviously didn't look into it

Get back to us when you start to present some science...

No, wait. Don't get back to us at all.


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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:45:38 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

>
> With the stuff I'm volunteering in, I would never give my real name. I rely
> on credentials of people like Dr Jones who know what *all* the evidence is.
> And I try to get people to understand it.

If you insist on relying on someone who holds rather odd beliefs do not be
surprised if many discount his (and your) views...



> If the evidence is false, it should be explained why it is false.

People have been, you just keep whistling to you can't hear them..

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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:36:23 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

>
> You might not understand what he means by squibs. Squibs are the puffs of
> smoke caused by the controlled charges.

No they aren't.

It becomes obvious Jones doesn't know what he is talking about either.

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