Trust it to you to phrase things that way. I'll warrant he knows a lot more then most on the physics of 9/11. I firmly believe the problem is as I mentioned; the university doesn't want to be seen as accusing the current administration of any wrongdoing for political reasons.
No, the university didn't want a known crackpot to be held responsible for teaching its students. Pure and simple:
Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
A view shared by just about every single structural engineering expert who has looked into the issue.
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
A view shared by just about every single physicist who has looked into the issue.
Or atleast that's what you believe.
That's what I know. If you had any honesty, you would know it too. When I was a kid, I knew the WWF wrestling was fake, but I believed it was real.
There is also another issue; in combination with Steven Jones, who he's done work with, they have come upon evidence from many, many experts. But you don't seem interested in looking in that.
So many scholars in the world, so many experts in the relevant fields and yet you can only produce a handful of 'experts' to support your claims. Most of which don't even have expertise in the required fields. Doesn't matter though, they can be easily debunked by the casual researcher.
Believe me, they're published. Maybe not in NIST type places, but they're published.
Not published and approved in the relevant journals that would earn them respectability.
Wrong and I've linked to many sites by scientists that reject the official story, but you seem to be turning a blind eye to this.
You linked a handful of websites with a handful of 'experts'. On close inspection you realise that they are hardly experts at all. Just because you may have a Ph.D in farting doesn't mean you can make claims relating to physics, demolition and civil engineering.
No, not 'infinitely'. It was certainly heavier, but its supports were a lot stronger then a cardboard box too. Kevin, why won't you just read Steven Jones critique of the official story?
It may as well be infinite, such is the difference between the force a falling cardboard box emparts compared the thousands of tons of building collapsing.
In the case of metal toy cars, I do believe that scaled, they are indeed built stronger as models then as the real thing.
The outercasing of a toy car remains more fragile than the shell of a real car. So why is one damaged and the other not when collided when a solid object?
I believe I was referring to the 2004 one. If you have both links I can give them a once over.
Well you do realize that the 2004 video were first shown by Aljazeera and accepted as genuine? I don't think Aljazeera would be willing to take part in any American cover-up. Do you?
Something coming to his mind is not the same thing as something he did. In any case, even the government no longer believes Osama Bin Laden masterminded it, so you can't even rely on them for support.
It's funny watching you be so stupid to try and keep your fantasy intact.
It's always been unknown how much Bin Laden directly had to do with planning 9/11, but as he is the head of the organisation that carried out the attacks, you have to admit that he is still the prime target.
