WTC Collapse: Need airtight answer please!

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Miller

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.

“Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.” — Bob Heenleen

[TimeWinder]

@split_p_j

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?

Yes, you’re right. It’s a conspiracy. You’ve convinced me.

[Czarcasm]

@split_p_j

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?

Yap yap yap yapity yap yap.
Where the hell is your link to the peer reviewed study that says what you think it says?

[Great_Antibob]

@split_p_j

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?

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).

It’s not Physics 101. Unless you think a civil engineering degree is a complete joke

As I noted earlier, I don’t shoot my mouth off about all parts of electrical engineering, even though I have a degree in it, if I’m not particularly trained in it. I’ll refer you to an actual expert.

Me? I trust the civil engineers. They’ve actually thought about these issues beyond a superficial level for decades.

@Amateur_Barbarian

“Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.” — Bob Heenleen

Yeah, Dunning-Kruger hits PhDs like everybody else.

[running_coach]

@split_p_j

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?

Would you trust a orthopedist to do brain surgery?

[split_p_j]

@Miller

It’s all on his wiki entry.

I’ll get my link, I don’t see the paper I’m referring to on the wiki.

[Marley23]

@split_p_j

Marley, I think it’s in my posts about thermite and nano thermite.

I don’t see it, and I’m through looking. Maybe, since it’s your cite, you should just dig up this brilliant and relevant piece of non-crap yourself.

@split_p_j

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?

I’ll give you points for being funny.

[Czarcasm]

@split_p_j

I’ll get my link, I don’t see the paper I’m referring to on the wiki.

Can you even tell us where it was supposedly peer-reviewed?

[Miller]

@split_p_j

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?

Yes, it is. Which means he’s not any more qualified to speak on what happened at the WTC than anyone else who’s taken Physics 101. That, of course, doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s wrong, it just means that he’s functionally an amateur in this discussion. And the actual experts - the people who do specialize in large-scale civil engineering and catastrophic failure analysis - say that his conclusions are entirely incorrect.

[Skywatcher]

@Great_Antibob

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).

Whose analysis of dust samples collected from a woman’s apartment some weeks after the fact then sent via first class mail is virtually worthless.

[samclem]

@split_p_j

Dr. Jones is a physicist. I think that discipline is relevant to 911, don’t you?

Most scientists would say NO.

[DataX]

@split_p_j

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.

Ever heard of someone being mistaken? Was she in office then?

If Condoleezza Rice stated that man landed on the moon in 1967 - would that mistake prove the moon landing was a hoax?

You know Obama once stated there were 57 states. I wonder what that means?

I don’t even get the point of this conspiracy - you think they bothered to hijack four planes and then fill the building with explosives as well? Isn’t just flying into the buildings enough?

The bush administration couldn’t keep much secret, but has managed to keep this secret all this time?

Why not just run the planes into the Capitol, White House, and Supreme Court - you wouldn’t need any extra explosives for that?

And there is like one or two kooks with a relevant degree that believe this - and everyone else - literally tens of thousands of people with the background who would be able to tell this was fake - they have all shut up?

Bush couldn’t even get away with hiring a shill reporter for the White House press corp.

They couldn’t keep even navy seals from discussing the highest classified assassination operation in US history. Where do they find all these traitors to blow up our own buildings and keep quiet?

How come they are so good at that, but can’t keep the plane on target and not crash in PA?

Jesus - I think Bush was an awful president, and have no doubt he covered up a few things to make himself look a little better - and get us to go to war against Iraq. But he isn’t THAT evil.

You know that any scientist in the world could easily do the frame by frame calculations - show it was high powered explosives - and be set for life - any journal would love to print it. You know the same media that doesn’t have a problem publishing everything Edward Snowden took - won’t have a problem publishing those facts either.

The fact is REAL scientists have looked at it - AND it is OBVIOUSly not what some with ZERO training think it is.

This is kinda like looking at a dead body full of bullets and thinking Johhny Smith did it because he has a big gun - when we actually have the technology to match the bullets with the guns.

You, yourself, could actually measure the difference in the frames - and figure out how fast the smoke was going - and compare it to charts of known explosives.

It requires:

1. A program that let’s you do frame by frame advance.
2. A method to measure distance (use the windows or something else)
3. A method to measure time - each frame is a specific unit of time
4. A table to look up how fast various explosives expand - use Google
5. A calculator

It isn’t that hard. You think the entire rest of the world that is smart enough to do this is just being hoodwinked?

I assume most of the people that believe this think it is one of those false flag things. Do they happen - yes. What is the rational reason here? We have OBL admitting to it on video? Is he in on it? He hated the Saudis - not the Iraqis. Why was he in on it?

I just don’t get how this makes any sense on ANY level.

At least the moon landing thing makes SOME sense for motive.

[Czarcasm]

@Marley23

I’ll give you points for being funny.

I think it stopped being funny about 4 or 5 threads ago. Now its just disgusting.

[x-ray_vision]

@Czarcasm

Can you even tell us where it was supposedly peer-reviewed?

Bentham Science Publishers

Bentham Science Publishers

Bentham Open journals claim to employ peer review;[4] however, the fact that a fake paper generated with SCIgen had been accepted for publication, has cast doubt on this.[5][6][7] Furthermore, the publisher is known for spamming scientists with invitations to become a member of the editorial boards of its journals.[8]

In 2007, the Bentham Open Science journal, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published a study contending dust from the World Trade Center attacks contained “active nanothermite”.[9] Following publication, the journal’s editor-in-chief Marie-Paule Pileni resigned stating, “They have printed the article without my authorization… I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them”.[10]

In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall noted that “in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science.” He concluded by stating that “the site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research.”[11]

[silenus]

@Czarcasm

I think it stopped being funny about 4 or 5 threads ago. Now its just disgusting.

Actually it’s more boring than anything else.

[Skywatcher]

@split_p_j

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.

@DataX

Ever heard of someone being mistaken? Was she in office then?

Pretty sure that those military drills were for aircraft (not necessarily airliners) flying nonstop from foreign soil, not airliners originating from domestic airports.

[Czarcasm]

@x-ray_vision

Bentham Science Publishers
Bentham Science Publishers - Wikipedia

Hey, split p&j-is this the used toilet paper you are referring to when you talk about peer reviewed papers?

[Skywatcher]

@x-ray_vision

Bentham Science Publishers
Bentham Science Publishers - Wikipedia

As noted in the quote, send them enough money and they publish nonsense. An editor resigned over that one, too.

[split_p_j]

@Great_Antibob

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).

It’s not Physics 101. Unless you think a civil engineering degree is a complete joke

As I noted earlier, I don’t shoot my mouth off about all parts of electrical engineering, even though I have a degree in it, if I’m not particularly trained in it. I’ll refer you to an actual expert.

Me? I trust the civil engineers. They’ve actually thought about these issues beyond a superficial level for decades.

Yeah, Dunning-Kruger hits PhDs like everybody else.

I still don’t understand. You need a civil engineer to build for that specific spot, I agree. But we are talking about physics in the most basic way, the acceleration of an object on earth due to gravity.

We know that value, we know the volume of the space between the floors, and we know the height of the buildings. We also know the speed of the collapse, the speed of the squibs, and the speed of the debris, all calculated from the video footage.

Are you trying to tell me that only a civil engineer can analyze that data?

[Czarcasm]

@split_p_j

I still don’t understand. You need a civil engineer to build for that specific spot, I agree. But we are talking about physics in the most basic way, the acceleration of an object on earth due to gravity.

We know that value, we know the volume of the space between the floors, and we know the height of the buildings. We also know the speed of the collapse, the speed of the squibs, and the speed of the debris, all calculated from the video footage.

Are you trying to tell me that only a civil engineer can analyze that data?

No. That shit’s already been thrown at the wall, and it didn’t stick the last ten times.
Where’s your peer-reviewed cite?