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

TRUTH wrote:

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

You have NO common sense.

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It's not peer reviewed.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?

"-hh" wrote in
ups.com:

An average troll by the lame handle of "TRUTH" wrote:
"-hh" wrote:

TRUTH wrote:

Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or
structural engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false

Jones claims that the presence of black smoke means the fire
temperatures could not have exceeded 650 C.


That is correct. btw, what is your expertise and education, may I
ask.

You first.


...
That is pure nonsense! One cannot say, "For the Towers to have
collapsed from fire, the fire must have been hotter somewhere.
Therefore the fire WAS hottter somewhere."

That's not what I said.


Where is the proof of that hotter fire?

You have asked the wrong question. The correct question is:
Where is the proof that there *could* *not* *have* *been* a hotter
fire?

The problem is that some black smoke is merely proof of *a* low order
fire; it does not positively preclude the presence of a higher order
fire.


There is no evidence showing hotter fires in other areas.

There's the evidence of tons of melted & salmon/yellow hot iron. That
says that there was a huge amount of heat that was present that
requires a source.

Jones tries to explain this away with his thermite claim. The problem
with this is that it is pragmatically inadequate to accomplish it on
the scale required: at the lower limit, you would have needed to have
smuggled at least 2,500 cubic feet of thermite *per floor* of the
building, and the upper limit is ~10,000 cubic feet *per floor*. The
scale is simply out of bounds to be considered practicable as a covert
preparation...let alone at low risk.


One cannot simply assume that there was.

Actually, as per the principles of Occam's Razor, we are obligated to
make just that assumption. It is not until the most simple
assumption has been clearly disproven do you from a causal approach
"fall back" to a more complicated solution set.


...you're treating it lile it's all there is. How about explaining
the rest of that paper?

I don't need to, because you only asked for (and I quote): "one piece
of evidence". Your request has been satified.



-hh





You're a government shill.

TRUTH wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote: in
You may be able to test Jones' speculations in the comfort of your own
home. No need for any math or computer simulations. You'll need a set
of Dominos or other long skinny rectangular blocks. Construct a mini
WTC or WTC-7 along these lines:

[ Experimental details elided for brevity. ]

Let me know how the experiment goes.

And where are the experiments pointing out the government's version?

At present we are trying to determine how model buildings collapse. Jones
claims the building should have fallen "over", not mostly down - the
version accepted by many others (including presumably the government)
allegedly say it would tend to fall mostly down, not "over." This is a
prime example where objective physical experiments can help determine the
TRUTH. If you seek truth you should be looking forward to performing the
experiment - it is easy enough to do. If, however, you have an agenda then,
well, you will find some "out".

Let me know how the experiment goes.

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?

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote: in
You may be able to test Jones' speculations in the comfort of your
own home. No need for any math or computer simulations. You'll need
a set of Dominos or other long skinny rectangular blocks. Construct
a mini WTC or WTC-7 along these lines:

[ Experimental details elided for brevity. ]

Let me know how the experiment goes.

And where are the experiments pointing out the government's version?

At present we are trying to determine how model buildings collapse.
Jones claims the building should have fallen "over", not mostly down -
the version accepted by many others (including presumably the
government) allegedly say it would tend to fall mostly down, not
"over." This is a prime example where objective physical experiments
can help determine the TRUTH. If you seek truth you should be looking
forward to performing the experiment - it is easy enough to do. If,
however, you have an agenda then, well, you will find some "out".

Let me know how the experiment goes.




I don't have the expertise to do such an experiment. Common sense is what
makes it obvious.

What did Rumsleld say the flight 93 was shot down? why did he say the
Pentagon was hit by a missile?

Respond in the other thread. I will no longer monitor this one

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:

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

You have NO common sense.




You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence, you must be
talking about yourself.

Not one person has provided proof!

You provided proof in one of your cites.

From: http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

The Pentagon attack:
the "no plane" theories discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven
evidence of complicity

a.. there is zero evidence for any of the "no plane" claims - hundreds of
people saw the plane, none saw a cruise missile, Global Hawk robot plane,
smaller plane or flying saucer piloted by giant lizards
b.. the physical evidence shows that a large twin engine jet hit the
nearly empty part of the Pentagon, the "Black Boxes" were found, cleanup
crews found remains of the passengers, the "hole was too small" claim was a
hoax.

LOL.

Paul Nixon

"khobar" wrote in
news:C6yLf.4487$Sp2.232@fed1read02:

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:

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

You have NO common sense.




You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence, you must
be talking about yourself.

Not one person has provided proof!

You provided proof in one of your cites.

From: http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

The Pentagon attack:
the "no plane" theories discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from
proven evidence of complicity

a.. there is zero evidence for any of the "no plane" claims -
hundreds of
people saw the plane, none saw a cruise missile, Global Hawk robot
plane, smaller plane or flying saucer piloted by giant lizards
b.. the physical evidence shows that a large twin engine jet hit the
nearly empty part of the Pentagon, the "Black Boxes" were found,
cleanup crews found remains of the passengers, the "hole was too
small" claim was a hoax.

LOL.

Paul Nixon





Okay, I understand now. There are so many unknows and opinions that not
every website will give exact same information. One just needs to look at
it, and consider which information is most important. Please post future
replies in the new thread

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 article ,
TRUTH wrote:

You believe a 757 hit the Pentagon when there's no evidence,

....aside from the *hundreds* of eyewitnesses (it flew over a crowded
freeway on the way in), the light poles knocked over by the plane on
approach, the missing commercial flight (it was a regularly scheduled
flight, and never landed anywhere else), the actual physical debris
(yes, it was there, and yes, it was in the colors used by that airline),
and the damage done to the building by something the size of a
commercial aircraft flying into it at a few hundred miles per hour...