Quote:
Originally posted by Deke4life
KSig RC,
I dont know how to respond to you... You obviously didn't read my entire response to RACooper.
I do not consider the qualitative information in my last post a support for the science in this issue (as seen on previous posts), and I have stated that very clearly many times.
As far as the science goes, I am merely reiterating what has been said in this paper. I suggest you read it too before you respond.
Dr. Jones' paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
|
I'm sorry but your response used a questionable conclusion to back up the conclusions you've reached with this paper... for example the whole Nero thingy - that's pretty much a hold over from the conspiracy folks of the middle ages - the
Golden Legend angle... an angle that has largely been discredited through serious scholarly work in the last 50 years.
So in order to refute the "research" and conclusion of the paper you keep flogging I'll ask a simple question:
"If WTC7 was taken down by demolition, why hasn't any credible sources come forward to either say they did it - or they saw the demolition team - or heard the explosions (demolitions are loud) - or to say explosive residue was found on the I-beams (after all alot of tests were done on them, even as the paper in question claims)? Conspiracies theories often don't hold up simply because one has to either suspend their disbelief concerning the events, or more importantly suspend their disbelief that so many people can keep a secret"
Threaded Mode