🚀 go-pugleaf

doug wrote:
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> > > doug wrote:
[...]

> >>Since jack has nothing to contribute, he decides to make a silly
> >>statement based on his ignorance of science as well as my
> >>education. Unlike jack, I have a PhD in physics.
> > 
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 
> >         Then you should have no problem refuting the official government
> > version of events on 9/11/2001.  Go ahead ... use your esteemed standing
> > as a physicist and explain to the people why the conservation laws of
> > momentum prohibit the government's narrative of events; that physics
> > alone can be used to establish the 'inside job' nature of the attacks.
> 
> Your paranoia is not a scientific argument, or any argument at all.
> It is funny to see the cranks leap on this instead of actually trying
> to learn some science. It is a lot easier to believe in conspiracies
> than to study.


        There you have it, folks, positive proof that they hand out
doctorates to anybody who toes the establishment line.   This clown,
'doug', demands study of general physics, but won't engage in a study of
the physics of 9/11/2001 ... a study that scuttles the establishment
narrative of the attack events.  Instead of developing the physics, he
prefers not addressing it all.  It's not like I was asking him to
discuss Schroedinger's Kitty, or Minkowski's diagram, or Young's
modulus, or Chandrasekhar's limit, or perturbation theory.   Law of
conservation of linear momentum ... c'mon, how difficult is that?

        Lacking integrity, then, how much value is there in any argument
'doug' makes ... on any subject at all, much less physics?
        
        The next physics charlatan waving a piece of papyrus ... please
step forth and identify yourself.  Yes, you may take five minutes to put
on some adult diapers.


        -zookumar-

ps:     www.infowars.com