Phony Science in WTC Report
in [Physics]
|
Prev: New simulator for electron conductance in quantum scale
Next: Chapt7, Tifft quantized galaxy speeds #229 Atom Totality
From: knews4u2chew on 22 Jul 2010 13:21 http://norfidid.wordpress.com/ The WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause .Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core. [1] James G. Quintiere, Ph.D. Professor, Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland (1971-1989, NIST chief of Fire Science and Engineering Division) Fear of the truth about 9/11 in New York City may have explained why three U.S. House hearings about the attackMarch 6 and May 1, 2002 and October 2005caused most of the members of the Science Committee either to be absent or fail to ask some key questions that could have begun solving the decade-old mystery of what really destroyed the World Trade Centers seven buildings on September 11, 2001. At least they should have demanded an independent science/technology investigation by renown national and international experts instead of accepting reports rendered by two seemingly politicized or fear-based federal agencies. [2]
From: DanB on 26 Jul 2010 23:27 slider142 wrote: > > Throwing names back and forth is not science. "Mr. So-and-so says X" > is neither empirical evidence, nor a rational argument. Yep, just stick to the evidence... <http://lakeweb.com/F77/> That is just some of it...
From: Iarnrod on 27 Jul 2010 00:07 On Jul 26, 9:27 pm, DanB <a...(a)some.net> wrote: > slider142 wrote: > > > Throwing names back and forth is not science. "Mr. So-and-so says X" > > is neither empirical evidence, nor a rational argument. > > Yep, just stick to the evidence... > > <http://lakeweb.com/F77/> > > That is just some of it... Some of the lies that is. BWAHAAAHAAHAHAAAA!!!!! You're too stupid to even know you are stupid!
From: DanB on 27 Jul 2010 02:24
Iarnrod wrote: > On Jul 26, 9:27 pm, DanB<a...(a)some.net> wrote: >> slider142 wrote: >> >>> Throwing names back and forth is not science. "Mr. So-and-so says X" >>> is neither empirical evidence, nor a rational argument. >> >> Yep, just stick to the evidence... >> >> <http://lakeweb.com/F77/> >> >> That is just some of it... > > Some of the lies that is. > > BWAHAAAHAAHAHAAAA!!!!! You're too stupid to even know you are stupid! <http://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html> troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames.... Fish. |