Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 11:46:07 GMT -5
In our recent discussion about the scientific evidence supporting controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11, Walter implied that there were no peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject. That is not true in the least. Here is one list of peer-reviewed articles for Walter.(1) (Some are technical science articles. Others are forensic and historical.) On the contrary, a vast array of scientific research articles have debunked the official government (NIST) explanations of the WTC demolitions on 9/11. A comprehensive review of the scientific literature has shown that all of the initial "scientific" claims about the demolition of the WTC supported the government's explanation-- including the Bazant article, which suspiciously surfaced on SEPTEMBER 13, 2001. (2) One very important point to emphasize is that there is a HUGE array of pseudo-scientific disinformation that has been published about 9/11-- on internet websites, and in mainstream media magazines, television shows, and newspapers. (The pattern is eerily similar to the ubiquitous disinformazia in our mainstream media (and on the internet) about the JFK assassination.) This is evident on Google searches for hashtags like "WTC demolition," etc. There has even been a government-funded pseudo-scientific journal of NON-PEER REVIEWED articles called, the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories! (Talk about pseudo-science! A journal dedicated not to research, but to "supporting" a pre-selected conclusion!) As the Swiss historian Daniel Ganser has pointed out, "All theories about 9/11 are 'conspiracy theories,' including the debunked U.S. government's 'conspiracy theory' about 19 Muslim hijackers." Why does this ubiquitous disinformazia about 9/11 exist in our media, folks? Any ideas? Are there powerful, well-funded organizations dedicated to preventing the public from finding out what really happened on 9/11? And how are intelligent, analytically-minded citizens able to separate the "wheat" from the government-funded "chaff?" (1) Journal of 9/11 Studies: Index of Articles
www.journalof911studies.com/journal-of-911-studies-index-of-articles/(2) WTC Destruction: An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature 2001 —2012 by Timothy E. Eastman, Ph.D. (Geophysics), and Jonathan H. Cole, P.E www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013EastmanColeVol37Apr.pdf
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 2, 2017 12:46:26 GMT -5
In our recent discussion about the scientific evidence supporting controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11, Walter implied that there were no peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject. That is not true in the least. Here is one list of peer-reviewed articles for Walter.(1) (Some are technical science articles. Others are forensic and historical.) On the contrary, a vast array of scientific research articles have debunked the official government (NIST) explanations of the WTC demolitions on 9/11. A comprehensive review of the scientific literature has shown that all of the initial "scientific" claims about the demolition of the WTC supported the government's explanation-- including the Bazant article, which suspiciously surfaced on SEPTEMBER 13, 2001. (2) One very important point to emphasize is that there is a HUGE array of pseudo-scientific disinformation that has been published about 9/11-- on internet websites, and in mainstream media magazines, television shows, and newspapers. (The pattern is eerily similar to the ubiquitous disinformazia in our mainstream media (and on the internet) about the JFK assassination.) This is evident on Google searches for hashtags like "WTC demolition," etc. There has even been a government-funded pseudo-scientific journal of NON-PEER REVIEWED articles called, the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories! (Talk about pseudo-science! A journal dedicated not to research, but to "supporting" a pre-selected conclusion!) As the Swiss historian Daniel Ganser has pointed out, "All theories about 9/11 are 'conspiracy theories,' including the debunked U.S. government's 'conspiracy theory' about 19 Muslim hijackers." Why does this ubiquitous disinformazia about 9/11 exist in our media, folks? Any ideas? Are there powerful, well-funded organizations dedicated to preventing the public from finding out what really happened on 9/11? And how are intelligent, analytically-minded citizens able to separate the "wheat" from the government-funded "chaff?" (1) Journal of 9/11 Studies: Index of Articles
www.journalof911studies.com/journal-of-911-studies-index-of-articles/(2) WTC Destruction: An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature 2001 —2012 by Timothy E. Eastman, Ph.D. (Geophysics), and Jonathan H. Cole, P.E www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013EastmanColeVol37Apr.pdfLMAO! Unbelievable. So, the so-called, "peer reviewed" scientific studies...EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM...that put forth the WTC controlled demolition theory are...wait for it....all found in one place; the website of the guy who claims there is so much peer-reviewed science about controlled demolition of the WTC. Yes...I am pissed that I went for the click bait. I feel dirty now.
|
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Godlike Member
|
Post by daleko on Aug 2, 2017 12:57:33 GMT -5
LMAO! Unbelievable. So, the so-called, "peer reviewed" scientific studies...EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM...that put forth the WTC controlled demolition theory are...wait for it....all found in one place; the website of the guy who claims there is so much peer-reviewed science about controlled demolition of the WTC. Yes...I am pissed that I went for the click bait. I feel dirty now. For the next time you click on one of Willie's suggested sites. I still remember one the the first PHDs he used, later recanted that it was just an April Fools joke. I wonder how many others are the same.
|
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021 Bowl Season Champion - 2023
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by lz2112 on Aug 2, 2017 13:08:28 GMT -5
|
|
Gator Bait!
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Godlike Member
|
Post by daleko on Aug 2, 2017 13:31:30 GMT -5
Willie will say your link is CIA controlled in 3, 2, .........
|
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021 Bowl Season Champion - 2023
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 14:15:35 GMT -5
This Wiki quote is sheer nonsense. Study the science data. It is spot on.
Go back and read what I wrote about the ubiquitous government-sponsored disinformation about 9/11.
In contrast, the NIST and Popular Science propaganda about 9/11 (including Bazant's 9/13/01 "research" article) is pseudo-scientific nonsense. Any reputable scientist today knows that.
Trust me, you loons. (Also, study the scientific credentials of the thousands of scientist, engineers, and scholars involved in the 9/11 Truth movement today.)
Wiki is always nonsense in matters relating to U.S. intelligence/military ops.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 2, 2017 14:30:05 GMT -5
This Wiki quote is sheer nonsense. Study the science data. It is spot on.
. How would you know if it's "spot on". You don't know anything about engineering.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 14:37:23 GMT -5
This Wiki quote is sheer nonsense. Study the science data. It is spot on.
. How would you know if it's "spot on". You don't know anything about engineering. I know a great deal about math, physics and chemistry.
I used to tutor students in physics at Brown, and I won two chemistry awards there-- top scores out of 500 students two years in a row. (General and Organic Chem)
The problem that you guys have, repeatedly, is that you don't observe the actual evidence and trust your own perceptions-- rather than the ubiquitous disinformation cranked out by the government.
I learned in medical school to "call them as I see them," regardless of (erroneous) popular opinions.
Two examples.
1) You guys can't even look at a photo of slender white fuselage and see that it is not a Boeing 757.
2) You seem incapable of looking at detailed video evidence of obvious serial explosions and pulverization of tons of concrete during the controlled demolitions of the WTC towers.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 2, 2017 15:20:03 GMT -5
How would you know if it's "spot on". You don't know anything about engineering. I know a great deal about math, physics and chemistry.
I used to tutor students in physics at Brown, and I won two chemistry awards there-- top scores out of 500 students two years in a row. (General and Organic Chem)
The problem that you guys have, repeatedly, is that you don't observe the actual evidence and trust your own perceptions-- rather than the ubiquitous disinformation cranked out by the government.
I learned in medical school to "call them as I see them," regardless of (erroneous) popular opinions.
Two examples.
1) You guys can't even look at a photo of slender white fuselage and see that it is not a Boeing 757.
2) You seem incapable of looking at detailed video evidence of obvious serial explosions and pulverization of tons of concrete during the controlled demolitions of the WTC towers.
Like I said, you don't know anything about engineering.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Aug 2, 2017 15:39:17 GMT -5
1) You guys can't even look at a photo of slender white fuselage and see that it is not a Boeing 757. Your powers of observation have no credibility. Put another way...if you can't believe a guy who calls a plane hitting a building a hologram, who can you believe?
2) You seem incapable of looking at detailed video evidence of obvious serial explosions and pulverization of tons of concrete during the controlled demolitions of the WTC towers.
Serial explosions? Where and when was the first explosion on each tower?
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Member is not online
Member with solid, if unspectacular number of posts
|
Post by oldgraylady on Aug 2, 2017 18:41:04 GMT -5
How would you know if it's "spot on". You don't know anything about engineering. I know a great deal about math, physics and chemistry.
I used to tutor students in physics at Brown, and I won two chemistry awards there-- top scores out of 500 students two years in a row. (General and Organic Chem)
The problem that you guys have, repeatedly, is that you don't observe the actual evidence and trust your own perceptions-- rather than the ubiquitous disinformation cranked out by the government.
I learned in medical school to "call them as I see them," regardless of (erroneous) popular opinions.
Wow, that's impressive
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by AlaCowboy on Aug 2, 2017 21:10:09 GMT -5
I know a great deal about math, physics and chemistry.
I used to tutor students in physics at Brown, and I won two chemistry awards there-- top scores out of 500 students two years in a row. (General and Organic Chem)
The problem that you guys have, repeatedly, is that you don't observe the actual evidence and trust your own perceptions-- rather than the ubiquitous disinformation cranked out by the government.
I learned in medical school to "call them as I see them," regardless of (erroneous) popular opinions.
Wow, that's impressive
What's even more interesting is that the Brown University Alumni Association can't seem to find records of a William Ernest Nie der hut graduating from there. I'm sure it's just an oversight.
|
|
56-43-2* OVER FLORIDA. ALWAYS IN THE LEAD. THE CRYBABY LIZARDS WOULD ACCEPT THIS IF THEY WERE HONEST *2020 Is Negated By Covid-19 15 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR GEORGIA FLORIDA HAS ONLY 8 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS BACK-TO-BACK NATIONAL CHAMPIONS 2021! 2022! FOUR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS!
AMERICAN BY BIRTH. SOUTHERN BY THE GRACE OF GOD!!!
2017 GRAND DOUCHE AWARD WINNER - NOW RETIRED
|
Member is not online
Member with solid, if unspectacular number of posts
|
Post by oldgraylady on Aug 2, 2017 21:16:33 GMT -5
What's even more interesting is that the Brown University Alumni Association can't seem to find records of a William Ernest Nie der hut graduating from there. I'm sure it's just an oversight. Cowboy, Have you contacted the Brown Alumni Association?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 21:30:09 GMT -5
What's even more interesting is that the Brown University Alumni Association can't seem to find records of a William Ernest Nie der hut graduating from there. I'm sure it's just an oversight. Huh? Check the Phi Beta Kappa inductees for 1979.
Check the Gordon Rhode Dewart Prize winner for 1979.
Check the Magna Cum Laude records.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 22:41:57 GMT -5
In our recent discussion about the scientific evidence supporting controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11, Walter implied that there were no peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject. That is not true in the least. Here is one list of peer-reviewed articles for Walter.(1) (Some are technical science articles. Others are forensic and historical.) On the contrary, a vast array of scientific research articles have debunked the official government (NIST) explanations of the WTC demolitions on 9/11. A comprehensive review of the scientific literature has shown that all of the initial "scientific" claims about the demolition of the WTC supported the government's explanation-- including the Bazant article, which suspiciously surfaced on SEPTEMBER 13, 2001. (2) One very important point to emphasize is that there is a HUGE array of pseudo-scientific disinformation that has been published about 9/11-- on internet websites, and in mainstream media magazines, television shows, and newspapers. (The pattern is eerily similar to the ubiquitous disinformazia in our mainstream media (and on the internet) about the JFK assassination.) This is evident on Google searches for hashtags like "WTC demolition," etc. There has even been a government-funded pseudo-scientific journal of NON-PEER REVIEWED articles called, the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories! (Talk about pseudo-science! A journal dedicated not to research, but to "supporting" a pre-selected conclusion!) As the Swiss historian Daniel Ganser has pointed out, "All theories about 9/11 are 'conspiracy theories,' including the debunked U.S. government's 'conspiracy theory' about 19 Muslim hijackers." Why does this ubiquitous disinformazia about 9/11 exist in our media, folks? Any ideas? Are there powerful, well-funded organizations dedicated to preventing the public from finding out what really happened on 9/11? And how are intelligent, analytically-minded citizens able to separate the "wheat" from the government-funded "chaff?" (1) Journal of 9/11 Studies: Index of Articles
www.journalof911studies.com/journal-of-911-studies-index-of-articles/(2) WTC Destruction: An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature 2001 —2012 by Timothy E. Eastman, Ph.D. (Geophysics), and Jonathan H. Cole, P.E www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013EastmanColeVol37Apr.pdfLMAO! Unbelievable. So, the so-called, "peer reviewed" scientific studies...EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM...that put forth the WTC controlled demolition theory are...wait for it....all found in one place; the website of the guy who claims there is so much peer-reviewed science about controlled demolition of the WTC. Yes...I am pissed that I went for the click bait. I feel dirty now. Uh, Walter, I hate to make you, Harry, and the Cheese Burgher look like three stooges again, but here are the scientific credentials of Thomas E. Eastman, Ph.D.-- the scientist who published the second research article in the Journal of 9/11 Studies that I posted at the top of this thread.*
The guy looks like a physics genius.
Ouch!! So much for your internet propaganda ridiculing the science research of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. (It's professional character assassination, etc.-- the same thing we have seen happening for years to the accurate Warren Commission critics-- DA Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Fletcher Prouty, et.al..)
You guys have been conned out of your jock straps.
Do you feel stupid yet? (I told you several times that there is a HUGE amount of Deep State internet disinformation attacking the scholars and scientists in the "9/11 Truth" movement.
Let me ask you a simple question. If you were involved with PNAC, planning and implementing the 9/11 false flag op, would you want the American people to figure out that 9/11 was a PNAC false flag?* Timothy E. Eastman, Ph.D./ Senior Scientist
science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/bio/timothy.e.eastman Timothy E. Eastman, space plasma physicist, is known for the discovery of Earth’s low-latitude boundary layer and the discovery of gyrophase-bunched plasmas. He developed key foundations at NASA Headquarters and the National Science Foundation for major international and interagency projects, including the International Solar Terrestrial Physics program, the interagency Space Weather Program, and the Basic Plasma Science and Engineering program, and currently supports science programs at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Dr. Eastman has published over 100 research papers, primarily in space plasma physics, but also in philosophy and data systems. As a founding member of the Coalition for Plasma Science, he continues to serve the plasma science community through education and public outreach. In 1994, Dr. Eastman created a Web site for all plasma science and applications (now plasmas.org). He was lead editor of a book on Physics and Whitehead (SUNY, 2004) and soon after introduced a new observational-inductive framework of science, analogous to Karl Popper’s hypothetical-deductive framework. In 2009, Dr. Eastman was awarded the Creative Advance Award from the International Process Network for “outstanding scholarly advancement of process-relational thought.” Since 2005 at GSFC, he has played a key role in over 500 Red Team reviews, many of which he organized and led, which have contributed to improved overall proposal success for Goddard scientists.
|
|