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

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:

1) It was NOT peer reviewed.
2) The URL of his paper: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding
are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

Jones is not a qualified building engineer. He has repeatedly founded
elaborate theories on tiny bits of evidence. For example, he also
believes that Jesus Christ visited ancient America:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/j...%20figures.htm

You and Jones both make the mistake of starting from a conclusion and
selecting facts that support it while ignoring those that don't. The next
step you take is to assume, incorrectly, that attacking someone elses
explanation X automatically makes your explanation Y the correct answer.

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

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:

1) It was NOT peer reviewed.
2) The URL of his paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding
are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

Jones is not a qualified building engineer. He has repeatedly founded
elaborate theories on tiny bits of evidence. For example, he also
believes that Jesus Christ visited ancient America:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/j...%20and%20figur
es.htm

You and Jones both make the mistake of starting from a conclusion and
selecting facts that support it while ignoring those that don't. The
next step you take is to assume, incorrectly, that attacking someone
elses explanation X automatically makes your explanation Y the correct
answer.




Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed. Perhaps if you look into it instead of
jumping to wild half baked conclusions (being the government's absurd)
version, you'd see it.

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. And since his paper, and the 150 people in st911.org, use science,
and not kooky proofless boxcutter nonsense, they can see that the WTC was
taken down by controled demolitions. So can anyone else who looks at the
information I posted.

TRUTH wrote:
Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed.

By what journal?

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.

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.

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Jim Logajan wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:
Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed.

By what journal?



Okay, if you mean peer reviewed in that sense, it was not as of yet.
According to BYU's website, it has not been properly submitted yet. But
once enought people can't on, it defintely will be. The 9/11 Truth
Movement
has been growing very rapidy. Especially the past 6 months or so, with all
the evidence and prominent people speaking up


Oh so now the TRUTH comes out. Peer reviewed means journal, EVERYONE knows
this so take your meds and quit posting this **** in our nice little news
group where we talk about small little airplanes.

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

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in
:


"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Jim Logajan wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:
Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed.

By what journal?



Okay, if you mean peer reviewed in that sense, it was not as of yet.
According to BYU's website, it has not been properly submitted yet.
But once enought people can't on, it defintely will be. The 9/11
Truth Movement
has been growing very rapidy. Especially the past 6 months or so,
with all the evidence and prominent people speaking up


Oh so now the TRUTH comes out. Peer reviewed means journal, EVERYONE
knows this so take your meds and quit posting this **** in our nice
little news group where we talk about small little airplanes.

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






Okay, so I make a little mistake and since you're so closed minded, you
think that negates all the scientific facts. LOL

Jim Logajan wrote:
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:

1) It was NOT peer reviewed.
2) The URL of his paper: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding
are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

Jones is not a qualified building engineer. He has repeatedly founded
elaborate theories on tiny bits of evidence. For example, he also
believes that Jesus Christ visited ancient America:

A little unfair attacking Jones' religious beliefs. After all, I also
believe that Jesus Christ visited ancient America, but I don't believe
Jones (who is a laughing stock at BYU) and I don't believe LIAR's
conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, I see your point.

TRUTH wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:
Yes, hius paper was peer reviewed.

By what journal?

Okay, if you mean peer reviewed in that sense, it was not as of yet.

"Peer review" has a clear meaning to everyone in the science community.
You've just admitted to lying to promote your unscientific view - the very
same charge you are leveling at others. Don't you think it absurd to use a
handle like TRUTH to lie and mislead others?