You seem to avoid engaging with me, what with your refusal to respond to a formal request to appraise the physics concepts outlined in "Crash physics for everyone":
and then on the radio show when you had the comfort of the fact that my microphone was being muted a lot of the time, I never actually managed to engage you did I?
And besides, you were not accepting responsibility for any of your answers, you were hiding behind Greg Jenkins.
So I'll try again.
Steve, I would like you to respond to me, in the open forum of the internet (like here for instance) to my allegations that you have been involved with the development of exotic weapons technology at Los Alamos and elsewhere and that you are possibly one of the exotic weapons experts of the World, and are working to cover up the use of such weaponry on 911.
Also that you were responsible Pons and Fleischmann being unable to continue with their developments, basically that you sabotaged the open development of free energy.
I would also like you to explain how if it would take "five times the power output of the Earth to reduce the WTC towers to dust" you suggest that this amount of energy could have been liberated from thermite. Or do you then distance yourself from this claim made by Jenkins?
Of course the sun provides infinite energy and is constantly available if you know how to harness and direct it isn't it? Your solar cookers are wonderful:
You trash the development of free energy for the world and then you hand out a crumb like this.
Open source. Very nice.
You still didn't come up with any flaws in "Crash physics" did you, because you know full well that no planes hit the towers.
You cited the TV as proof of the planes hitting the towers, and then went on to talk about "scientific method".
Let's see what you have to say when I am able to respond properly.
A mighty scientist like you should be able to put me straight if I am wrong eh?
And since I see you as a TRAITOR, well, if you can respond and enter into dialogue about this a lot of people will be able to form their own conclusions.
Hell, they'll do that anyway won't they?
But it would be much better if they had some words from you.
If you want you could start by choosing just one subject to respond about.
For instance one of the following:
1. Crash physics.
2. Your history with Los Alamos and other institutions working to develop exotic weapons technology.
3.Your role in the Pons and Fleischmann debacle.
I await your reply.