• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Physics Prof Says 911 an Inside Job

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Without going into political motives or asking why, Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University in Provo Utah, has based his conclusions on pure science alone. One of the most remarkable facts is that all 3 buildings WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, collapsed into their own footprints, which is a difficult feat even for a controlled demolition. But this is not one building we are talking about. It is all three. It is this fact, along with others, which leads him to his conclusion. His paper has been accepted for peer review in 2006.

Why would any person, or group of people, do a controlled demolition of the WTC buildings? Nobody knows, and nobody knows who. Jones does not address that, but only the science, which makes anything other than a controlled demolition an impossibility. Read the link. You will find this fascinating.

Article is here.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Even if this were true (which it's clearly not), how does "controlled demolition" automatically imply "inside job"?

This opinion goes against the thousands of engineers and architects who reviewed the building layout and concluded that 747s crashing COULD cause the collapse of the buildings.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mod Note

Off to Conspiracy Theories forum.

/Mod Note
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
danarhea said:
Without going into political motives or asking why, Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University in Provo Utah, has based his conclusions on pure science alone. One of the most remarkable facts is that all 3 buildings WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, collapsed into their own footprints, which is a difficult feat even for a controlled demolition. But this is not one building we are talking about. It is all three. It is this fact, along with others, which leads him to his conclusion. His paper has been accepted for peer review in 2006.

Why would any person, or group of people, do a controlled demolition of the WTC buildings? Nobody knows, and nobody knows who. Jones does not address that, but only the science, which makes anything other than a controlled demolition an impossibility. Read the link. You will find this fascinating.

Article is here.
I think there was more than jets involved to bring the towers down. The steel in the WTC was UL listed and tested again after 9/11 and it still passes the tests so it couldn't have been melted by jet fuel alone. Another thing that's pretty much ignored is workers hearing multiple booms throughout the buliding before the planes hit.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
danarhea said:
Without going into political motives or asking why, Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University in Provo Utah, has based his conclusions on pure science alone. One of the most remarkable facts is that all 3 buildings WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, collapsed into their own footprints, which is a difficult feat even for a controlled demolition. But this is not one building we are talking about. It is all three. It is this fact, along with others, which leads him to his conclusion. His paper has been accepted for peer review in 2006.

Why would any person, or group of people, do a controlled demolition of the WTC buildings? Nobody knows, and nobody knows who. Jones does not address that, but only the science, which makes anything other than a controlled demolition an impossibility. Read the link. You will find this fascinating.

Article is here.
Physis professors also have claimed that travel in space was impossible. They also have claimed that the human body couldnt withstand going faster than 50mph. They also claimed that flying was impossible that it was only for birds. They also claimed that a human couldnt experience a g pull because the human would die. And they also claimed that nuclear energy was impossible.

There goes that idea. And you had to beleive a Mormon(aka Moron)?

Wheres the common sense?
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It didn't collapse neatly into the footprint. I visited the site after 911, and there was debris everywhere.

Man, these 911 conspiracies as so full of it.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The steel didn't melt. It became soft like plastic with the heat. The towers collapsed evenly about their footprint because there was good lateral stability in the structure & besides there weren't any significant lateral forces as the towers collapsed. There were however gargantuan forces purely in the vertical direction as the towers built up momentum like a giant pile driver.
When demolition crews want a lateral collapse they place charges at the base of a building on one side. Clearly that was not the situation with the towers.
How did that guy ever become a physics professor :roll:
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Question:
robin said:
How did that guy ever become a physics professor :roll:
Answer:
danarhea said:
Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University in Provo Utah,
'Nuff said.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
shuamort said:
Question:

Answer:

'Nuff said.
Sorry no a nuff not said.
Is that a naff university or something ?
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
robin said:
The steel didn't melt. It became soft like plastic with the heat. The towers collapsed evenly about their footprint because there was good lateral stability in the structure & besides there weren't any significant lateral forces as the towers collapsed. There were however gargantuan forces purely in the vertical direction as the towers built up momentum like a giant pile driver.
When demolition crews want a lateral collapse they place charges at the base of a building on one side. Clearly that was not the situation with the towers.
How did that guy ever become a physics professor :roll:

Wow.
I agree with Robin.
I guess she CAN be right.
Whoda thunk?

IF you're going to deliberately drop the towers, with a controlled demolition, with the intent to cause as much destruction as possible -- why do it straight down? Why not lop it over to one side?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
robin said:
Sorry no a nuff not said.
Is that a naff university or something ?
It's a wacky mormon school that requires its students to sign an honor pledge that states, for one example, that they must not drink tea.
Students must commit to being honest, chaste and virtuous; abstaining from illicit drugs, alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea (substances forbidden by the Word of Wisdom); using clean language; and abiding by the guidelines for dress, grooming, and housing. For example, skirts and shorts must reach to the knee and shirts may not be sleeveless.

Other fun things:
Because of the church's subsidy, there is a two-tier tuition system, in which non-LDS students pay approximately 50% higher tuition than LDS students (for the 2005-2006 academic year, LDS members will pay $1705 to attend a semester full-time, while their non-LDS counterparts will pay $2558).

The number of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender students or faculty at BYU is unknown. The school's strict Honor Code does not require LGBT non-member students and faculty to remain in the closet, so long as they are strictly celibate, or they are monogamous within a legal heterosexual marriage.

"Because the gospel encompasses all truth and affirms the full range of human modes of knowing, the scope of integration for LDS scholars is, in principle, as wide as truth itself." However, citing BYU's role as a religious institution, the document allowed limitations to be placed upon "expression with students or in public that:

1. contradicts or opposes, rather than analyzes or discusses, fundamental Church doctrine or policy;
2. deliberately attacks or derides the Church or its general leaders; or
3. violates the Honor Code because the expression is dishonest, illegal, unchaste, profane, or unduly disrespectful of others.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
SKILMATIC said:
Physis professors also have claimed that travel in space was impossible. They also have claimed that the human body couldnt withstand going faster than 50mph. They also claimed that flying was impossible that it was only for birds. They also claimed that a human couldnt experience a g pull because the human would die. And they also claimed that nuclear energy was impossible.

There goes that idea. And you had to beleive a Mormon(aka Moron)?

Wheres the common sense?
I saw a show on TV that explained how the buildings collapsed as neatly as they did, and it had to do with the internal structure design. Once the upper flooring steel was weaked from the fires, it was a given that it would collapse as it did. The lower levels were being "hammered" by the weight of the upper levels falling. They could have anticipated what happened to it by looking at the Empire State Building, which survived a bomber flying into it. But they probably assumed that an accident like that would not happen with modern planes, radar, etc. Of course, the WTC was not an accident.

Skilmatic, what makes you hate Mormons? Is it based on fact, or ignorance and bigotry? Granted, this professor is an idiot of the first order, but idiots come in all colors, religions, etc.
If you are going to slander a specific religion, you should post your religion, otherwise you are a coward. If you have one, post it, and I can probably tear it apart from my own studies of Christian religions. If you are not a believer, then why do you attack a specific religion?
Keep your hatred, bigotry, and ignorance to yourself, or be prepared to get what the nazi AI is getting.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
scottyz said:
I think there was more than jets involved to bring the towers down. The steel in the WTC was UL listed and tested again after 9/11 and it still passes the tests so it couldn't have been melted by jet fuel alone. Another thing that's pretty much ignored is workers hearing multiple booms throughout the buliding before the planes hit.
References? Links? Professional credentials? Do you have anything to back this BS up?
The steel does not have to be melted to be weakened. The internal structure design was something new, and the results were predictable if only the designers had anticipated some terrorists wanting to fly airplanes with nearly full fuel tanks into it.
Inside job, my ass. Only a very poorly educated person, or a conspriracy nut, or an idiot will believe that.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
shuamort said:
It's a wacky mormon school that requires its students to sign an honor pledge that states, for one example, that they must not drink tea.
Students must commit to being honest, chaste and virtuous; abstaining from illicit drugs, alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea (substances forbidden by the Word of Wisdom); using clean language; and abiding by the guidelines for dress, grooming, and housing. For example, skirts and shorts must reach to the knee and shirts may not be sleeveless.

Other fun things:
Because of the church's subsidy, there is a two-tier tuition system, in which non-LDS students pay approximately 50% higher tuition than LDS students

"Because the gospel encompasses all truth and affirms the full range of human modes of knowing, the scope of integration for LDS scholars is, in principle, as wide as truth itself." However, citing BYU's role as a religious institution, the document allowed limitations to be placed upon "expression with students or in public that:

1. contradicts or opposes, rather than analyzes or discusses, fundamental Church doctrine or policy;
2. deliberately attacks or derides the Church or its general leaders; or
3. violates the Honor Code because the expression is dishonest, illegal, unchaste, profane, or unduly disrespectful of others.
Wacky? You, as a moderator, should know better than to make such a statement. Check out the cancer rates in Utah. The LDS church was against smoking even when the doctors were siding with the tobacco companies and saying that it was good for us.
and the two tiered tuition is not an issue here. It is a church school, and they have a right to charge "out of religion" rates same as state schools charge out of state rates. I wonder how many non-members attend? Many do, so they must like the code of conduct.
I have lived among Mormons for a long time. Their quirks are far more preferred than the evangelicals who show up at gay rights parades and hurl insults, or picket abortion clinics, or try to force their members to vote a certain way. Granted, the majority are conservative, so that last part is probably a non-starter. They are, for the most part, very low key in their stands on those kinds of issues.
But as for the professor, even the LDS have some wingnuts in their midst.
None are immune from that.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Professor at a mormon college means he's is a psuedo prof.. that explains the BS from him. I never trust religious idoits. Their aim isn't the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth.

As regards "When demolition crews want a lateral collapse they place charges at the base of a building on one side."
Sometimes demolition crews do that so a building will fall in the direction of an open space away from other buildings.
Incidently M14 it 'he' not 'she'
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
robin said:
Professor at a mormon college means he's is a psuedo prof.. that explains the BS from him. I never trust religious idoits. Their aim isn't the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth.
All religions are faith based, not truth based, but that does not mean that just because he is at a Mormon college means that he is a psuedo prof. Granted, this one sounds like a flake. When I was living in Idaho and taking night classes, my physics instructor came down to Idaho Falls from Ricks College in Rexburg, which was a 2 year church school, now is a 4 year LDS college. He was outstanding as a professor, not only knew his stuff but knew how to present it in a way to make it fun. Had a history prof from ISU that had the same teaching talents, also LDS. Did not like the English teacher, tho, as she was a bit of a nutcase.
You would think that a church college would be teaching weakened versions
of science classes, but that usually is not the case. I can't speak for the evangelical colleges, tho, having never dealt with them.
One Mormon neighbor in Idaho had the belief that the earth is only 4,000 years old, but he was a very old man at the time. His son had attended BYU, and I asked if he thought BYU was teaching the 4.000 year old theory, and he admitted that they probably were not.
If the 9/11 special on the fall of the WTC comes on again, it bears watching, as it showed exactly the design changes that led to the almost perfect vertical collapse.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Science is about truth. Religion is about faith. I've never met a religious scientist who's science wasn't compromised by their faith.
The two are a contradiction on terms. Science & religion is an oxymoron.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
robin said:
Science is about truth. Religion is about faith. I've never met a religious scientist who's science wasn't compromised by their faith.
The two are a contradiction on terms. Science & religion is an oxymoron.
How many scientists have you met? There are plenty of scientists who acknowledge that there may be some aspect of intelligent design involved. Most of them know that the Genesis story is a parable, not likely to be how the earth was created.
They also know that the sum total of what we think we know is a very small drop in a very large bucket. An open mind does not exclude new ideas based on current knowledge, else we get nowhere.
I would not advocate the teaching of I.D. in public schools, but I would not exclude it as a viable idea either.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
UtahBill said:
References? Links? Professional credentials? Do you have anything to back this BS up?
The steel does not have to be melted to be weakened. The internal structure design was something new, and the results were predictable if only the designers had anticipated some terrorists wanting to fly airplanes with nearly full fuel tanks into it.
Inside job, my ass. Only a very poorly educated person, or a conspriracy nut, or an idiot will believe that.
Got anything to refute it? The UL listed steel shouldn't have been weakened by jet fuel alone.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
scottyz said:
Got anything to refute it? The UL listed steel shouldn't have been weakened by jet fuel alone.
You are the one making the baseless accusations, without evidence, or proof. So it is up to you to provide links or evidence.
What is your education that makes you think that UL listed steel can withstand all that fire?

Read this
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/failure.htm
 
Last edited:

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
UtahBill said:
You are the one making the baseless accusations, without evidence, or proof. So it is up to you to provide links or evidence.
What is your education that makes you think that UL listed steel can withstand all that fire?

Read this
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/failure.htm
The collapse of the WTC

by Kevin Ryan
Underwriters Laboratories


The following letter was sent by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan

Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
from http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/failure.htm


Tall buildings have generally been made with a rigid steel skeleton, sheathed in the lightest materials to keep out the weather. Alternatively, reinforced concrete, where the compression-resisting and protecting concrete surrounds the tough, tension-resisting steel, integrated into a single body, has been used. Such structures have never failed (when properly built on good foundations), and stoutly resist demolition. When the lower supports of a steel skeleton are destroyed, the weight of the building seems to crush the lower parts and the upper parts descend slowly into the pile of debris. Monolithic reinforced-concrete buildings are diffcult to demolish in any fashion.

The World Trade Center towers used neither a steel skeleton nor reinforced concrete. They were designed as square tubes made of heavy, hollow welded sections, braced against buckling by the building floors. Massive foundations descended to bedrock, since the towers had to be safe against winds and other lateral forces tending to overturn them. All this was taken into consideration in the design and construction, which seems to have been first-rate. An attempt to damage the buildings by a bomb at the base had negligible effect. The strong base and foundation would repel any such assault with ease, as it indeed did. The impact of aircraft on the upper stories had only a local effect, and did not impair the integrity of the buildings, which remained solid. The fires caused weakening of the steel, and some of the floors suddenly received a load for which they were not designed.

What happened next was unexpected and catastrophic. The slumped floors pushed the steel modules outwards, separating them from the floor beams. The next floor then collapsed on the one below, pushing out the steel walls, and this continued, in the same way that a house of cards collapses. The debris of concrete facing and steel modules fell in shower while the main structure collapsed at almost the same rate. In 15 seconds or so, 110 stories were reduced to a pile 9 stories high, mainly of steel wall modules and whatever was around them. The south tower collapsed 47 minutes after impact, the north tower 1 hour 44 minutes after impact. The elapsed times show that the impacts were not the proximate cause of collapse; the strong building easily withstood them. When even one corner of a floor was weakened and fell, the collapse would soon propagate around the circumference, and the building would be lost.

It is clear that buildings built in this manner have a catastrophic mode of failure ("house of cards") that should rule out their future construction. It is triggered when there is a partial collapse at any level that breaks the continuity of the tube, which then rolls up quickly, from top to bottom. The collapse has a means of propagation that soon involves the whole structure, bypassing its major strengths and impossible to interrupt. There is no need for an airliner; a simple explosion would do the job. There were central tubes in the towers, for elevators and services, but they appeared to play no substantial role in the collapse, and were not evident in the pictures or wreckage.


There is more, from the PBS show NOVA, at the link.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
UtahBill said:
How many scientists have you met?
I work with them all day in a hospital Physics Dept.
If it's true that there's a God, then science will find proof in the end won't it.
Besides.. What is the exact philosophical meaning of the word 'God' ?

I see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a loving caring God.
Only one that has set this universe in motion as some sick experiment & we are merely disposable vehicles for our genes, just like any other animal in that experiment.

As the Rabbi cried in his revelation as he went into the Auchvitz gas chamber... 'There can be no God'
 
Last edited:

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
robin said:
I work with them all day in a hospital Physics Dept.


/QUOTE]

What does a hospital physics scientist do?
 
Top Bottom