BYU physics professor disputes WTC collapse explanation - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

creekster · 11-10-2005, 07:15 PM

The evidence does support what happened. Two planes collided with the twin towers which began to burnm and then coillapsed, tkaing other strucutres witht hem, including WTC 7. The jet fuel weakned the steel superstructure sufficiently that the weight of the towers led to an implosion, which implosion continued as the weight accumulated. The peretrators were hateful exteremists.

This all fits. We all saw it. This evidence does support the observed phenomenon.

THe claims of Jones aand others rely on examining some of the eivdence and asserting that this evidence (such as the powdery smoke on the exterior of th ebuilding that Jones says is typically seen with demolitions) is consistent with another theory but never explaionign why this evidence is UNIQUE to the new theory. IOW, what is it that CAN'T be explained by the traditional explanation? There are many. many a;lternate theoerie that might fit some or most of the eiuvdence, but only the evidence that is impossible to explain should really be examined.

Pluys, you say ythat the quyestions haven't been debunked, but they have. What do you think hasn't been debunked and what are you relkying on to reach that coinclusion?

FInally, you blithely, but skillfully, ignore the quesiton of why and how could the laternate explanation have happened? "Hey buddy, what are youdoing with that crate full of C-$ in the corner of the WTC?" how could this expert demotloion have been set up without notice before and with out a revelation afterwards?

The most plausible explkanation is also the least exciting.

11-10-2005, 07:15 PM	#11
creekster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the far corner of my mind Posts: 8,711	Your reasoning isn't consistent. The evidence does support what happened. Two planes collided with the twin towers which began to burnm and then coillapsed, tkaing other strucutres witht hem, including WTC 7. The jet fuel weakned the steel superstructure sufficiently that the weight of the towers led to an implosion, which implosion continued as the weight accumulated. The peretrators were hateful exteremists. This all fits. We all saw it. This evidence does support the observed phenomenon. THe claims of Jones aand others rely on examining some of the eivdence and asserting that this evidence (such as the powdery smoke on the exterior of th ebuilding that Jones says is typically seen with demolitions) is consistent with another theory but never explaionign why this evidence is UNIQUE to the new theory. IOW, what is it that CAN'T be explained by the traditional explanation? There are many. many a;lternate theoerie that might fit some or most of the eiuvdence, but only the evidence that is impossible to explain should really be examined. Pluys, you say ythat the quyestions haven't been debunked, but they have. What do you think hasn't been debunked and what are you relkying on to reach that coinclusion? FInally, you blithely, but skillfully, ignore the quesiton of why and how could the laternate explanation have happened? "Hey buddy, what are youdoing with that crate full of C-$ in the corner of the WTC?" how could this expert demotloion have been set up without notice before and with out a revelation afterwards? The most plausible explkanation is also the least exciting.