Nanothermite and the World Trade Center

[beesonthewhatnow]

armchair warriors

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

the paper is open for the peer-review process of the entire world

You make science cry.

 

[Jazzz]

FFS to demolish a building with explosive even super nano explosives you would have to plant them all over the place thats how Demoltion works.
Plus you have to tamp them or the blast takes the easist route out.
A big enough bomb gets over that problem with brute force but isnt as precise.

"when you have eliminated the impossible, what remains must be the truth, however improbable" Sherlock Holmes

the nanothermite shouldn't be there and confirms those who already knew that controlled demolition had occurred. If it took hundreds of tons of explosive (conventional + thermitic) to blow up the WTC, then that's what it took.

 

[butchersapron]

As noted in earlier post, Bentham publish some 200 papers, and they claim that they are peer-reviewed. Whilst there may have been a problem with one paper, I don't believe anyone has succeeded in submitting nonsense articles to the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

But in any case, the point is moot - the paper is open for the peer-review process of the entire world. If any scientist has a criticism to make of it, we're all ears. So far there's been nothing forthcoming.

Tell us, in some detail exactly, why you find the scientific elements of the paper so convincing.

 

[editor]

But in any case, the point is moot - the paper is open for the peer-review process of the entire world. If any scientist has a criticism to make of it, we're all ears. So far there's been nothing forthcoming.

Why do you think that is is? Go on, take a guess.

 

[editor]

"when you have eliminated the impossible, what remains must be the truth, however improbable" Sherlock Holmes

the nanothermite shouldn't be there. If it took hundreds of tons of explosive (conventional + thermitic) to blow up the WTC, then that's what it took.

That'll be those amazing invisible explosives then.

 

[existentialist]

"when you have eliminated the impossible, what remains must be the truth, however improbable" Sherlock Holmes

That is not the scientific method. It is the writings of an author of fiction.

I am beginning to understand why you have so much difficulty coming to grips with the concept of proof.

 

[butchersapron]

"when you have eliminated the impossible, what remains must be the truth, however improbable" Sherlock Holmes

the nanothermite shouldn't be there. If it took hundreds of tons of explosive (conventional + thermitic) to blow up the WTC, then that's what it took.

When you declare things that are possible to be impossible you do violence both to this literary quote and to the truth.

 

[Jazzz]

The incredibly biased BBC "conspiracy files" interview with Harrit - forming the basis for Rooke's non-payment of TV license

 

[Spymaster]

"when you have eliminated the impossible, what remains must be the truth, however improbable" Sherlock Holmes

So now you're quoting a story book as scientific fact!

 

[Jazzz]

wow, 9 alerts... nice to know I have so many fans at midnight...

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

the nanothermite...confirms those who already knew

Start with the conclusion, find evidence to fit.

SCIENCE!

 

[butchersapron]

wow, 9 alerts... nice to know I have so many fans at midnight...

This is the logic of the attention seeker.

 

[existentialist]

wow, 9 alerts... nice to know I have so many fans at midnight...

Yes, because it's quite obvious from how we're responding to your idiocy that we're all fans!

 

[Spymaster]

wow, 9 alerts... nice to know I have so many fans at midnight...

Yep, great troll.

Must be pleasing.

 

[Jazzz]

Start with the conclusion, find evidence to fit.

SCIENCE!

Looking for confirmatory evidence to a hypothesis is most certainly good science mate.

 

[butchersapron]

Looking for confirmatory evidence to a hypothesis is most certainly good science mate.

Tell us, in some detail, exactly why you find the scientific elements of the paper so convincing.

 

[existentialist]

Looking for confirmatory evidence to a hypothesis is most certainly good science mate.

Actually, it's not. It's fairly poor science. Proper science is looking for evidence which disproves the hypothesis.

I don't expect you to understand this, by the way.

ETA: And I think you'll find that's Mister mate to you, btw.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Looking for confirmatory evidence to a hypothesis is most certainly good science mate.

No, no it's not.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

Indeed, despite no criticisms being made of the science in the paper:

http://scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Harrit_PileniResignation.pdf

Indeed, the very fact that she offered no criticisms of it provided, implicitly, a positive evaluation---an acknowledgment that its methodology and conclusions could not credibly be challenged.

ffs

 

[Jazzz]

Actually, it's not. It's fairly poor science. Proper science is looking for evidence which disproves the hypothesis.

Well, both are good science. But say, how do you look for evidence to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis?

 

[existentialist]

Well, both are good science. But say, how do you look for evidence to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis?

I think you'll find plenty on this very thread. The fact that you can't see it is telling.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Well, both are good science.

No.

But say, how do you look for evidence to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis?

Jesus, how many fucking times do we have to do this?

 

[Jazzz]

I think you'll find plenty on this very thread. The fact that you can't see it is telling.

Name one scientific reason, or scientific forensic investigation that either has been or could be done, to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis.

If you have many to choose from, you can come up with one.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Name one scientific reason, or scientific forensic investigation that either has been or could be done, to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis.

Again.

 

[Jazzz]

That's no good. facepalming won't help you here bees.

Name one.

 

[existentialist]

Name one scientific reason, or scientific forensic investigation that either has been or could be done, to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis.

If you have many to choose from, you can come up with one.

They're all in the thread, Jazzz. Prove your scientific competence by identifying one, even if you don't agree with it.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Seriously, go away and come back when you've bothered to learn how science actually works.

 

[Bruce23]

Everyone knows that space aliens knocked down the towers.

 

[Jazzz]

They're all in the thread, Jazzz. Prove your scientific competence by identifying one, even if you don't agree with it.

Seriously, go away and come back when you've bothered to learn how science actually works.

Sorry guys, I've had enough of your snide asides and am outing you both in the talking utter crap stakes. It was a mistake for you to join in here bees.

Name one scientific reason, or scientific forensic investigation that either has been or could be done, to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis.