Jim Logajan wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:
Jones does not need to be a building engineer. He's a physicist and
is therefore qualified to determine if the government's version
defies physics.

So? I have a physics degree too.

Why do you listen to Jones and not the people with physics and
engineering degrees who wrote the reports that contradict Jones'
theory? If you were really objective, you'd consider their analysis
too. You'd quote from them equally and contrast the explanations
yourself. But my guess is that you don't have the technical background
to do that, so you are using subjective criteria that leads you to
unfounded beliefs.



You're making the assumption that people have been proving Jones wrong.
That is not true. If you know otherwise, please prove it.

I do not have a physics/engineering degree, but do have a technical
background, and definitely have an abundance of common sense.

Look at the info in my other posts. If you have a physics degree, I
challenge you to read Jones' paper and demonstrate that anything that he
has to say to be false.


Are you aware these NIST facts?

FACT: The NIST investigators made the assumption that collapse initiation
would "inevitably" lead to global collapse, despite the fact that it never
happened before in world history.

FACT: The NIST investigators performed little analysis of the structural
behavior of the Towers following collapse initiation

FACT: The NIST investigators altered the data for their computer
simulations

FACT: The NIST investigators refuse to show their computer simulation model
despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers.