See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics"
Source:
opednews.com
URL Source: http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7524
Published: Jun 2, 2008
Author: Diary Entry by George Washington
Post Date: 2008-06-02 22:50:01 by TwentyTwelve
Keywords: 911, "Impossible", "Violates the Law of Physics”
Views: 1878
Comments: 117
May 27, 2008 at 15:08:49 Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics” Diary Entry by George Washington Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics" :::::::: Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including: A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this) Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here) Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: "Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition" Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust." Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?" Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues: "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!" Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado, points out: "The force from the jets and the burning fuel could not have been sufficient to make the building collapse. Why doesn't the media mention that the 11th floor was completely immolated on February 13th, 1975? It had the weight of nearly 100 stories on top of it but it did not collapse?" David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues: "Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ." Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states "I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures. Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse. For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures." Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes: "We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below. We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top. The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?" David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this) Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired) Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College See this website and this website for further additions. There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the government's account in private. We support them and wish them courage to discuss these vital issues publicly.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: wudidiz, Original_Intent (#0)
Christ, what took them so long? Maybe they were waiting for Mearsheimer and Walt to weaken the Zionists' stranglehold on the minds of Americans before acting.
"Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust." Funny? I could have sworn that I was saying that 4 or 5 years ago. Funny? I could have sworn that I was saying that 4 or 5 years ago. Funny? I could have sworn that I was saying that 4 or 5 years ago. Where were these quaking yella' bellies 4 or 5 years ago when people were already making these connections? Methinks these clowns are speaking up only now because of the courageous people who stood up to the withering blasts of "Kook", "Conspiracy Theorist", "Whack Job", etc., ... It was the voices of the people courageous enough to state the obvious years in advance of these late coming worms. I'm glad to see that their jellied spines have developed enough rigidity at this late date to speak up, but where were these voices on Jan. 1 2002? Well, where were they?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Just curious, do you have any idea when these statements were originally written, not just quoted in the article?
"Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. ... I don't want to be critical here, but you really have to read an awful lot into that for it to make sense. I mean, for one thing, a "controlled demolition" does not violate the laws of physics, and if that's what it takes ....
At least some of these quotes are old. They're just quotes, why assume they're new except to assume something for which there is no evidence.
Of course not. Heaven forfend that we might mistake your caustic innuendoes for criticism. Shucks, we would never do that. We never mistake snide comments for mere criticism.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Who's "we", you and Houndclown?
Your point? You do I presume?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Pretty soon every dumbass bozo in the place will be ganging up on me, I suppose.
They were certainly nowhere to be found when Dr. Stephen Jones was forced out of his Professorship and pushed out the door at BYU and that was less than 2 years ago.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I noticed Houndclown started the concept of "all quotes are fresh" and you contributed. There's really no point in asking you if you know how fresh the quotes are. It's obvious you have no idea.
Pretty soon every dumbass bozo in the place will be ganging up on me, I suppose. "Dr. Heckle meet Mr. Snide."
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
What is obvious is that you are trying to start a pissing contest to divert from the topic of the thread upon which you have offered nothing of any substance. Merely brickbats, innuendoes, and sniping attacks to try to draw people off topic and into a flame contest. Hint: If I wanted to bite you are no match for me in a flame war. No brag. Just fact.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
How was that supposed to be stopped? With reason? Please. It's freaking Utah out there, get a grip.
You'll win in any kind of dispute here is what you're saying. I understand you. You're Mr. Winner on the Internet. Never thought I'd find you.
patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html Patriots Question 911: 130+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials 480+ Engineers and Architects 110+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals 260+ Professors Question 9/11 210+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members 140+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals RECENT ARTICLES: Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”, “A Well-Organized Cover-up”, “A White-Washed Farce” Jan. 14, 2008 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 "Flawed", "Absurd", "Totally Inadequate", "a Cover-up" Jan. 5, 2008 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation – Official Account of 9/11 "Impossible", "Hogwash", "Fatally Flawed" Dec. 13, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews Eight Senior Republican Administration Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False" Dec. 4, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report – Official Account of 9/11 a "Joke" and a "Cover-up" Sep. 23, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews
What took these cowards so long to come out of hiding? I am not a structural engineer and I knew something was really odd about they way the towers came down the first time I saw it. The media had already saturated the airwaves on the radio that it was a "progressive failure", and that that was the reason it came down, only hours after it actually happened. So when I first saw it on TV later in the day I was thinking, HOW? How could that possibly be? But since I had already heard these "experts" earlier there was already a seed planted in my mind that it was a progressive collapse and I assumed that they must know what they are talking about, but it did seem very strange to me. Regrettably I forgot about how strange the collapse was until a couple years later when I started investigating it more. However from day one I knew that at minimum our government knew about this plan and let it happen either through negligence, or on purpose, but I never thought they actually planned and carried it out themselves until 2003. Americans have been lied to from day one, and the main stream media will never report the truth about this, especially since they are an active participant in the disinformation campaign for the government. If they reported the truth about it now it would also implicate them for putting out known lies to start with. They will cover for their sources until hell freezes over.
God is always good!
Look, these are not all new quotes, a little searching will show many of these names have been published already. It looks suspicious when everyone is jumping to the same lame conclusion. You know what I mean by suspicious? I mean the basis for time-contingent insults to these people from numerous posters here, posted almost sequentially, is suspicious. You pulled the "where were they for Jones" thing out of nowhere too. Another distraction.
Jan 1, 2007 Why are Architects and Engineers Re-examining the WTC Collapses? — Editor The 6 years since 9/11/01 has given us the time and space to emerge from the hypnotic trance of the shocks of these attacks and to rationally evaluate the existing and new evidence that has become available. Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience. In addition, the shock that hit us on that date from the repeated attacks and staggering loss of life has limited our ability to rationally evaluate what really happened. We therefore found ourselves relying solely upon the judgment of outside "experts"... and, quite willing to, "go along" with the collective myth that has unfolded: that "the buildings failed structurally due to the aircraft impacts and resulting fires". After all, we saw the aircraft slam into the building, the resulting huge fireball, and the ensuing "collapses". There is however a growing body of very solid evidence regarding these "collapses" that has emerged in the last couple of years - gaining ground even in the mainstream media. This new evidence casts grave doubt upon the theories of the 9/11 building collapse "experts" as well as the official reports by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST. It lays out a solid convincing case which architects & engineers will readily see: that the 3 WTC high-rise buildings were destroyed by both classic and novel forms of controlled demolition. You will find the evidence here in our website as well as at the linked websites. We hope you will find the courage and take the necessary time to review each section thoroughly. After all, if in fact these buildings were professionally demolished with explosives, and since it takes months of planning and engineering to place the explosives, and since these buildings were highly secure from foreign terrorists, then we are presented with a horrible conclusion that we cannot deny: that this entire event must have been planned and orchestrated by a group other than those who are blamed by our Government. The questions raised are numerous and ominous that must be answered in the context of a truly independent unimpeachable congressional investigation with subpoena power. We can play a very significant role as building professionals because we have the necessary technical credibility that Congress will respond to. Please join us in calling for a re-investigation.
Or until their feet are held to the fire. One thing that should occur is to jerk their Broadcast licenses. That would get their attention.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
They have been keeping a low profile, that's for sure. I can imagine the very real threats from the CIA and Mossad goons to keep quite or else having a great influence on their decision to keep a low profile.
God is always good!
Low profile? Seems like all the names are up in a big list prominently featured on a major 9/11 truth website. You call that "low profile?" The list has been there for some time and I suppose it is still growing. Trying to cut that growth off as being too late? Were they all supposed to go on air with Alex Jones or something like that?
Scientists, Architects & Engineers 9/11 Truth Radio Show w' Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, AIA
Professor Jones being forced out was meant to be a warning and an example designed to have a chilling effect on credentialed discussion. It was an attempt to define explosive demolition as "out of bounds", but thanks to Professor Jones' principled stand, and continuing to stand up, others can now speak up without fear of suffering the same fate. That is why we see the worms popping out of the wood work. More will now follow. I am hoping it becomes a tidal wave that cannot be stopped. Not only was Jones not shut up he has a article or two due out in major Peer Reviewed Journals. (While I am historically highly critical of such Journals as merely being gatekeepers designed to inhibit original thought they have the virtue of being granted credence by Academia and Credentialed Professionals.)
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Forget you're under the ZOG, or what? I think you skipped a step or two.
Do you hear that Gnat buzzing around too?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Questions which are Unanswered on 911 - Pakistan Daily 05/25/08
Y'all burning something? Why, it's mah effigy! A train of torches approaches in the dark. Hoods? I was too damn caustic.
Steven Jones Calls for 9/11 Criminal Investigations (05/17/08)
I'm waiting for the first Congresscritter to break ranks and come out with a mea culpa. "I'm shocked! Do you hear me? Shocked. It has just been brought to my attention ..."
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Your character criticisms of these people who have published their names supposedly should have gone unchallenged and you are ganging up with the poster who called them "cowards" --- that is my perception of y'all's progress so far. Comments? Ah I forgot - I was the nasty snide one for correctly noting a technical error of ellipticality in one quote and not judging the person's character on it, according to you, Mr. Winner on the Internet. You're all quite the professional puke party. There would be no reason to lambaste these people even if the quotes were new, unless you want to halt the growth of it. Late if it's new, maybe, but better late than never.
Jones is founding editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to scientific examination of the events of 9/11. He also recently authored the first article on 9/11 to be published in a peer-reviewed civil engineering journal, The Open Civil Engineering Journal (TOCEJ). The article is entitled "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction" (18 April 2008).
Great replies fellas, but, I didn't bother because the relevance of The Troll's observation has yet to be established. I think you're correct in assuming that either he is attempting to deflect away from the subject or, is in desperate need of some validation. Having assessed his mental disorder previously I see no need to cross swords with ignorance again. I know the difference between wit and venom and responding to the latter would favor the unworthy. As luck would have it, we've successfully disappeared several other trolls with similar afflictions. This one was quiet for a while and is attempting to rip us off again for his own ego gratification. Let me know if he becomes a nuisance. We can target him for aversion therapy, too.
That is because the Troll's observations are not relevant, but it is a useful tool for underscoring the fact that their are people posting on forums whose primary function is to break up discussions and try to prevent rational discourse. They are at worst an annoyance, much like finding that rats are crawling out of the sewer, and at best an amusement which inadvertently help to destroy their own spin. Definitely diversion and disruption IMHO. If you keep on the high road, with an occasional bon mot, they have little effect other than to underscore the presence of an active disinformation campaign. They only become a problem when you have multiple disruption points on a forum. Which reminds me - I visited El Pee the other day and noticed that 'botsands is still attacking me months after Goldi-Pox banned me for pointing out that she is a hypocritical liar (at no time did I violate any of El Pee's rules on the thread upon which she banned me - thus making it apparent that she was simply purging people whom she could not out debate or refute). The 'bots have to have something or someone to attack and I left enough of a mark on them that they still find it necessary to attack me at this late date. The point of mentioning that is not inflate myself but to underscore how much the 'bots/disruptors/PsyOperators rely upon attacking people personally to stem intelligent discussion, and that if you rely upon putting forth true statements they cannot refute then you become a perpetual target. The PsyOperators have to keep lying every day to keep their lie in place, and they require numbers which here they don't have. The truth is so much more powerful than their lies that they have to attack it at every opportunity. He is as a fly looking for a comfortable stool. I think you have hit the point though in that 'bots/PsyOperators/Hasbarfa do not long last here because they are out matched on multiple fronts. That probably is one of the things that holds down the viewership here as 'bots are not tolerated and unlike LF there is not an insane tolerance for disruptors as "having a right to speak". They are fun to engage and embarass, as much as low I.Q. paid disruptor can be embarassed, as an amusement, and as foils to point out how bankrupt the official spin is.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
LOL! She is a serious asshole. I read what she did to you, and she no longer makes any pretense at anything but house mother for the insane system thugs. They may dominate their little piece of the virtual universe but believe me, they know what the loss of cred cost them. They're just another Hale-Bopp type of death cult now.
Would you two fuckwits stop obsessing over me and explain why you think the quotes are new.
They're all quotes from ae911truth.org. They aren't new, idiot.
You two wouldn't be confusing "irascible" and "unconvinced" with trolling behavior, would you? We need more critical thinking, not less.
Actually I find ill-mannered, boorish, and snide to be better descriptors. One does not have to behave as a troll to make a point or raise a question - particularly if one is interested in debating or questioning a point.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Comments (41 - 117) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
#3. To: TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, All (#0)
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states
"I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.
Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues:
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"
#4. To: Original_Intent (#3)
#5. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues:
#6. To: HOUNDDAWG (#2)
what took them so long
#7. To: nobody, TwentyTwelve, all (#5)
(Edited)
I don't want to be critical here,
#8. To: Original_Intent (#7)
#9. To: nobody (#4)
Just curious, do you have any idea when these statements were originally written, not just quoted in the article?
#10. To: Original_Intent (#7)
caustic innuendoes
#11. To: nobody (#4)
Just curious, do you have any idea when these statements were originally written, not just quoted in the article?
#12. To: Original_Intent (#9)
(Edited)
#13. To: nobody, TwentyTwelve, all (#10)
caustic innuendoes
#14. To: nobody, HOUNDDAWG, christine, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, all (#12)
I noticed Houndclown started the concept of "all quotes are fresh" and you contributed. There's really no point in asking you if you know how fresh the quotes are. It's obvious you have no idea.
#15. To: Original_Intent (#11)
They were certainly nowhere to be found when Dr. Stephen Jones was forced out of his Professorship and pushed out the door at BYU
#16. To: Original_Intent (#14)
#17. To: Original_Intent, nobody, HOUNDDAWG, christine, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, all (#14)
#18. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
(Edited)
#19. To: Original_Intent (#9)
(Edited)
#20. To: RickyJ, FormerLurker, wudidiz, all (#18)
What took these cowards so long to come out of hiding?
#21. To: RickyJ, TwentyTwelve (#18)
Americans have been lied to from day one, and the main stream media will never report the truth about this, especially since they are an active participant in the disinformation campaign for the government. If they reported the truth about it now it would also implicate them for putting out known lies to start with. They will cover for their sources until hell freezes over.
#22. To: Original_Intent (#11)
They were certainly nowhere to be found when Dr. Stephen Jones was forced out of his Professorship and pushed out the door at BYU and that was less than 2 years ago.
#23. To: RickyJ (#22)
(Edited)
keeping a low profile
#24. To: Original_Intent (#21)
#25. To: RickyJ (#22)
#26. To: Original_Intent (#21)
jerk their Broadcast licenses
#27. To: RickyJ, nobody (#22)
#28. To: Original_Intent, FormerLurker, wudidiz (#21)
#29. To: Original_Intent (#21)
their feet are held to the fire
#30. To: Original_Intent, RickyJ (#25)
Not only was Jones not shut up he has a article or two due out in major Peer Reviewed Journals.
#31. To: TwentyTwelve (#30)
#32. To: Original_Intent (#7)
(Edited)
Heaven forfend
#33. To: Original_Intent (#25)
Not only was Jones not shut up he has a article or two due out in major Peer Reviewed Journals.
#34. To: TwentyTwelve, christine, Original_Intent (#17)
#35. To: HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, christine, nobody, all (#34)
Great replies fellas, but, I didn't bother because the relevance of The Troll's observation has yet to be established.
I think you're correct in assuming that either he is attempting to deflect away from the subject or, is in desperate need of some validation.
I know the difference between wit and venom and responding to the latter would favor the unworthy.
Let me know if he becomes a nuisance. We can target him for aversion therapy, too.
#36. To: Original_Intent (#35)
Goldi-Pox
#37. To: Original_Intent (#35)
#38. To: HOUNDDAWG (#2)
Christ, what took them so long (to say this)?
#39. To: Original_Intent, HOUNDDAWG, nobody (#35)
#40. To: buckeye, HOUNDDAWG, nobody (#39)
You two wouldn't be confusing "irascible" and "unconvinced" with trolling behavior, would you? We need more critical thinking, not less.
.
.
.