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

Dan wrote:
Frank F. Matthews wrote:



TRUTH wrote:

Dan wrote in news:jbqLf.24058$Ug4.15324@dukeread12:


Thomas Borchert wrote:

Truth,


that explain ANY of the clear scientific envidence provided.


It's not peer reviewed. So let's just assume it's not science,
either, until proven otherwise by the peer review. Which is exactly
the purpose of peer review.


Actually real engineers in Jones' own school have debunked it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired






Yeah, where? Point out the specific URL?


They should bother creating a URL just to debunk you?


Especially since other people have presented same showing where the
engineers at BYU very diplomatically called Jones a liar. Truth refuses
to believe it so it didn't happen.

It has been established truth:

1) knows nothing about science or the scientific method - he has said so
2) knows nothing about math - he has said so and proved as much
3) knows nothing about being a pilot - he has proved this
4) knows nothing about metallurgy - he can't accept hot metal can fail
5) knows nothing about demolition - "squib" is a "puff of smoke"
6) changes the questions after he asks them and misuses the responses
7) asks for responses from engineers and pilots then calls them liars
8) thinks name calling is a proper method of argument
9) etc

and yet tells us WE don't understand or have open minds.

I have come to the conclusion he either is that dense or he is just
yanking our collective chains.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In a way. He like you and I are just having fun. He just needs to
sound like a nut while doing it. Given his rabid defense of the prof I
suspect that he is the prof hiding and trying to look like he has
supporters.