Printable View
I've read that shit and it's not scientific. Why is it published on website called tyrannyalert and blueprint for truth and not in independent refereed journals of science and engineering? Because it can't get passed the referees. Oh that's right, they're part of the cabal.
okay, use your common sense to calculate the time of fall.Quote:
All you need is common sense, not a Ph.D. in physics to comprehend fundamentals of physical properties.
House Keeping
House Keeping
The paper you cite is indeed published in the very new (vol 2. issue 1) The Open Civil Engineering Journal. You will have noticed, however, it does not offer a primary analysis. For example, why do the authors dismiss the pancake model? The paper doesn’t say. The authors merely remark that on this point they are in agreement with NIST. Another example: why do the authors think initial impacts alone were insufficient to topple the towers? Again the paper doesn’t really say. The authors cite their agreement with NIST and others on this point, but they never say what they find agreeable in the arguments of others. The whole paper is a survey of opinion and lacks argument. Now there’s nothing wrong with this. A lot of professional papers are of this variety. But my contention is this. If you were convinced by this paper without looking up and understanding the actual arguments that were presumably presented in the twenty seven referenced articles, then your belief is based on airy nothingness. You believe because you want to believe.
Personally I’ve got better things to do than to attempt to read the technical arguments presented in twenty seven references. I may pay closer attention if the authors ever get the attention of their professional community.
So far, [edit] no society of architectural engineers endorses the theory that the buildings were brought down by synchronized detonations. No explosives were found. True enough, no one looked for them. Nevertheless, lack of evidence for existence is indeed evidence for lack of existence, for that is the essence of Occam’s razor.
This is getting rather far a field of the 2nd amendment. Cabals were far enough a field…but I could see at least a remote connection. [But] sabotage, after all, would not constitute evidence of a [mind controlling, ruling] cabal. I’m no longer going to address questions on the fall of the WTC in this thread. Start a new one if you wish.
House Keeping
House Keeping
Dr. Steven Jones doesn't sound like a society of architectural engineers. If he is, he's a society of one.
House Keeping
House Keeping