I whole heartedly agree with you.
Here is the thread if anyone else would like a chuckle and missed it.
Posted on 08/06/2006 6:53:53 PM PDT by new yorker 77
I had to get coffee off my keyboard when I read the "not junk sciences, why this guy teaches Islam" comment in the article.
The fact that I can make a paper clip melt by holding over a lighter does not mean that exploding jet fuel can melt steel. It does not mean it can't either. It means nothing.
There is a big a link between my proposed experiment with the lighter and paperclip and the WTC collapse as there is between Paris Hilton's latest societal faux pas and the WTC collapse, which is to say there is none.
I'm sorry. I read your post 3 times and I've no idea what you said.
I am trying to point out that the experiments that supposedly "prove" the WTC could not have collapsed on 9/11 (and were therefore destroyed by other explosives) have absolutley nothing to do with what really happened.
I whole heartedly agree with you.
Here is the thread if anyone else would like a chuckle and missed it.
I have emailed F.R. Greening because of a silly mistake in his paper about the energy of the collapse. He divides the total mass of the building by 110, the above ground floors, and proceeds with his calculations as though that is the correct mass for each floor. But the building had six sub-basements and it had to be bottom heavy so his calculation would shift mass upwards implying greater potential energy than there was.
A pretty dumb mistake for a PhD criticizing stupid conspiracy theorists.
More details are here:
http://booksliterature.com/showpost.php?p=2382&postcount=5
psikeyhackr
PS - He hasn’t responded to the email in 2 weeks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.