On 28 abr, 14:15, Eric Gisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 24, 6:13 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Cal Tech is the ELITE of ELITE in physics. > > "INN World Report interviewed Dr. Crockett Grabbe - professor of > physics at the University of Iowa - regarding his thoughts on the > 'collapses' of WTC1, WTC2, & WTC7. In this interview he lists numerous > reasons to suspect controlled demolition and expresses support for > alternative theories." > > A common mistake - I frequently confuse CalTech and U of Iowa. > > http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a... > > That's interesting, no publications on any engineering topic. A > professor of physics, not engineering, who claims that explosives were > planted in not only WTC7, but WTC 1 and 2 which were trigged by the > planes impacting the building. > > Why is anyone listening to this loon?
There is no engineering professor or less who has written a counter- thesis to Jones' thesis Why Indeed Did The Twin Towers Completely Collapse http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf Have you even read it? Can you find me a counter-thesis, a direct respons to that thesis which rejects it in detail beyond a cursory "I don't agree"? Don't you find it interesting that this thesis which is held up by 90% of the Truth Movement as the smoking gun that WTC7 was controlled demolition has had no formal or professional response from defenders of the Official story? That the academic world remains silent? And yet Jones' career has published over 50 academic papers in esteemed journals. > > > > > If Feynman were alive, he would point his finger straight at the 911 > > criminal operators, the yank bastards themselves ....... > > I don't recall Feynman ever advocating nutcase positions. You havn't even demonstrated as much and already you're on an ad hominem assassination? Are you lying and misrepresenting this issue deliberately? > > > > >http://www.911blogger.com/node/8101 > > > No self-respecting scientist should keep his mouth shut. Its a > > fundamental challenge to the method of science, a detective work most > > demanding of INTELLECTUAL HONESTY. > > I love how folks like you ask for intellectual honesty when every > effort is made to ignore evidence that doesn't agree with your > presupposed findings. Which evidence would that be? Please cite twhich evidence contradicts the controlled demolition hypothesis of WTC7 posited in this paper: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
