| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Scientists will be happy to deal with teh findings of Jones, once he has some verifiable, repeatable, scientific findings. Once he publishes them in a reputable journal, scientists will examine them in great detail, I assure you. Unfortunately, he's too afraid to submit it. |
That's really is very good! Especially as it would appear that of all the major WTC theories (FEMA/NIST/Jones') the Jones one is the only one that satisfies your own verifiable repeatable and scientific criteria. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Then why is he afraid to publish it in a reputable scientific journal? No matter how times you go around in circles, you cannot ever explain away the same, inescapable fact. He won't submit it to scientific journals... why? If he's confident in the science of the paper, it will get published. If the science is good, it will be published. The reason he's afraid, isn't because he's afraid they'll say no, it's _how_ they'll say no. He knows it's psuedoscience, and not worthy of publication. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wonder why the fact that the buildings burned for hours, and presumably generated loads of ash, is not taken into consideration when people wonder why there was such a big dust cloud. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: |
It's that black and white thinking again, Chek. He thinks there are only 2 choices for falling buildings - tip over sideways like a bowling pin or collapse into a tidy pile. Obviously, the towers did spillover the edges of the collapse wave and also spilled outwards once the debris filled the 6 sub-floors. We end up with a 6 floor high pile, approximately. Looking at the diagrams and pictures that have been presented I think it is a surprisingly small area for the rubble of 2 110-story towers. But now we are just in a cyclical subjective argument. |
The sub-floors could not fill first, since they still had most of the building protecting them when the collapse started. Just look at the footage, and you will see that the buildings looked like a mushroom as they collapsed, with a large part of the debris spilling off the sides. |
Ah - that old mushrooming-pancaking collapse throws everybody. Is the mass inside or outside the building?
Can't be both, and there's only one mechanism that throws that much mass aside that quickly that I can think of.
And it isn't jetfuel.
Do you think all that 'friction' might have expanded the cloud? |
There's your black and white thinking, Chek. Some of the mass is inside the building, some is outside. So when it stops falling, we indeed see that some of the debris is within the footprint of the building and some is outside. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Then why is he afraid to publish it in a reputable scientific journal? No matter how times you go around in circles, you cannot ever explain away the same, inescapable fact. He won't submit it to scientific journals... why? If he's confident in the science of the paper, it will get published. If the science is good, it will be published. The reason he's afraid, isn't because he's afraid they'll say no, it's _how_ they'll say no. He knows it's psuedoscience, and not worthy of publication. |
Perhaps, one day soon, when the US is a free country again, that'll happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, I forgot, all the scientists are in on the conspiracy, and all have agenda other than... science. Starting to tread on the intelligent-design tactics, now.
He's afraid to publish in scientific journals, simply, because it's more useful as propaganda than as science. That should be patently obvious to anyone objective enough to look at the facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | I wonder why the fact that the buildings burned for hours, and presumably generated loads of ash, is not taken into consideration when people wonder why there was such a big dust cloud. |
Hi pepik and welcome to the wonderful and mysterious world of 9/11 CT 
You are right about the ash (although not about how long the fires burned, except WTC7). Also the internal walls were lined with dry-walling (plasterboard in UK terms). Smash that up and you have a cloud of lightweight fragments and dust. The concrete floors also collapsed onto each other together with a huge mass of steel girders, creating yet more dust and debris. The CT'ists take this as proof of high explosives, or sometimes thermite, or maybe thermate ....
Good luck over here!
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | Oh, I forgot, all the scientists are in on the conspiracy, and all have agenda other than... science. Starting to tread on the intelligent-design tactics, now.
He's afraid to publish in scientific journals, simply, because it's more useful as propaganda than as science. That should be patently obvious to anyone objective enough to look at the facts. |
So why throw up all these diversions? To avoid looking at his findings?
As the Republican paedophile Foley case shows (and how ON EARTH can it be spun as a Democrat failing as per the attack on Pelosi by a supine press corp) you don't have to be 'in' on anything, you only have to be aware of which way the wind blows these days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again, you are accusing scientists of being complicit or incompetant. Do you have any proof of these claims? Or is just an assumption to justify the Dr. Jones' inability to muster the courage to subject his "paper" to actual scientific critique?
When are you going to realize it's nothing but propaganda. Real scientists aren't afraid of putting their work in front of people who will understand it. Plenty of them have published incredibly controversial things (even Dr. Jones here, and his cold fusion research) with full understanding that many will consider them crazy.
This man, quite simply, is afraid to put his 9/11 work in front of people who can critique it's validity best. That's just sad. If he honestly believed the work was valid, he would submit it and respond to their criticisms, until it was in a publishable form. His complete and utter rejection of the peer-review-scientific-journal route of publication is a personal referedum on his contempt of the scientific process.
Essentially, what he wants you to believe is that scientists aren't to be trusted. That's exactly what Intelligent Design people do, too, and it's the reason I consider CT and ID to be the two biggest threats (one from each side of the political spectrum) to science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | I wonder why the fact that the buildings burned for hours, and presumably generated loads of ash, is not taken into consideration when people wonder why there was such a big dust cloud. |
Hi pepik and welcome to the wonderful and mysterious world of 9/11 CT
You are right about the ash (although not about how long the fires burned, except WTC7). Also the internal walls were lined with dry-walling (plasterboard in UK terms). Smash that up and you have a cloud of lightweight fragments and dust. The concrete floors also collapsed onto each other together with a huge mass of steel girders, creating yet more dust and debris. The CT'ists take this as proof of high explosives, or sometimes thermite, or maybe thermate ....
Good luck over here! |
Hi Pepik - if you can find one collapsed building anywhere that minces itself to dust in under 14 seconds - let alone two of them, be sure to let us know!
Happy Researching!
Last edited by chek on Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WTC 1 and 2. That was easy. Next question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
