CITE?
But you’ll bother to just make claims that you won’t support as if that will give you a better response?
Peer reviewed and published, you know what that means right? This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. The scientific method was followed by a credentialed member of the scientific community , and it’s just dismissed so easily here.
I mean, what more do you want? This is why I’m not going to bother here. I just wanted to make the OP aware that there is way more information than is generally known
You think we hand out cards?
Climate change denialists also have credentials. A lot of them are chemists or engineers, though. Not climatologists.
That’s the point of checking the actual paper and credentials. A civil engineer’s word is going to carry a heck of a lot more weight than a random microbiologist.
Ok, I’ll give you an easy one to start with. Condoleezza Rice stating afterwards that no one could have imagined airliners being used as weapons and flown into buildings.
The records that we can get show the US military drilling for such an event as early as '95, 6 years before 911.
Clearly some one was thinking about the possibility.
I’ve clicked all over your posts and couldn’t find a link to a citation.
^ That’s because “they” don’t want you to find it!
Dr. Jones is a physicist. I think that discipline is relevant to 911, don’t you?
We’re still waiting for you to define your antecedent for “this”.
He’s a high energy physicist who was previously most famous for his work in muon-catalyzed fusion. That’s not remotely relevant to large-scale civil engineering or catastrophic failure analysis.
Not to mention his tinfoil hat gets in the way of serious discussion.
Marley, I think it’s in my posts about thermite and nano thermite. Which were dismissed by people saying oh it was jut the steel and the aluminum from the buildings that was found.
Even though physicist say it’s impossible for the two materials to interact on the microscopic level do to gravity.
**Split_p&j, **this site is a very good starting point for most 9/11 theories, as I suspect you have more objections to the “official” theories than just one.
The link is also available as a book. Highly recommended. I’ll bet 90% of your questions can be answered by it.
We haven’t dismissed it. We haven’t even SEEN it.
Nobody’s mentioned this yet, but we’d like the actual cite.
So are saying he is a physicist, but he can’t analyze a building collapse supposedly driven by gravity because he specializes in high energy particles? So he can work in muon-catalyzed fusion, but has nothing to add when it comes to basic physics.
That sounds like a hand wave to me.
You mean the one which used samples with no chain of custody and the one he could ony get published in a vanity journal, which caused the editor in chief of said journal to resign in disgust? That paper?
I pretty much expected this.
He can analyze it all he wants. But he will have no special knowledge or ability beyond that of a layman (though a well educated layman).
I have a degree in electrical engineering. It’s a big field. Ask me to design an FPGA, and I’ll get to work on it (though I haven’t done so in years and will be very rusty). Ask me to work on high voltage power lines and metropolitan power systems, and I’ll refer you so somebody else. I don’t shoot off my mouth on things I have no special training in.
Now I have to ask for a cite.
I don’t understand this. Just because he’s specialized means he can’t comment on gravity and what it can and can’t do? Isn’t that physics 101?