Scientific Theory for Controlled Demo Thread.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

Until such time as he receives that
valuable Denie-approved peer review.

Denie approved peer review?
Sorry, but you now seem obtuse.

Here, go read a book on peer review rather than making ridiculous remarks

[Circus]

Originally Posted by sunflower

He's keeping mum about it - trying to keep his chance of its publishing high, and away from too much publicity. I'm sure he'll tell everyone interested once it's passed review. From my understanding, review can sometimes take years.

Well Sunflower, I'll agree that if he can adquately pass peer review in a real scientific journal, I'll start taking his work more seriously.

Right now I have numerous peer review papers on the collapses, the nist report, fema, Columbia seismologists, Purdue University, etc... that all support the collapse theory.

I have no scientifically published work supporting the controlled demoloition whatsoever.

It's why I think this entire debate is currently a joke.

[sunflower]

Originally Posted by Circus

Well Sunflower, I'll agree that if he can adquately pass peer review in a real scientific journal, I'll start taking his work more seriously.

Right now I have numerous peer review papers on the collapses, the nist report, fema, Columbia seismologists, Purdue University, etc... that all support the collapse theory.

I have no scientifically published work supporting the controlled demoloition whatsoever.

It's why I think this entire debate is currently a joke.

NIST's report was not peer-reviewed.

[gorillamom]

Originally Posted by sunflower

I understand it completely. I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying, tho.

You want scientific theory regarding CD - you've posted this in the 9/1 thread. Therefore, you're talking about the Twin Towers. Am I right thus far?

I'm also not trying to hijack it...but if you're looking for science by the way of the Twin Towers' demolitions, it is axiomatic that the official story of how they fell, i.e., FEMA, NIST, Silverstein-Weidlinger, Popular Mechanics - take your pick - would be used as your argument against that scientific theory of CD.

Why don't you apply your own rules to yourself? And BTW, if you haven't already noticed, there are a plethora of threads in this very topic regarding 9/11, theory, scientific data, etc., on CD.

I think what he is asking for is scientific proof that building 7 and the towers were wired. So far there is no evidence or anyone coming forward to provide truth to this "theory". That's all anyone has asked for, not just youtube or idiot sites. Evidence is what is needed to prove it was a CD operation.

[Duvidoo]

Originally Posted by gorillamom

I think what he is asking for is scientific proof that building 7 and the towers were wired. So far there is no evidence or anyone coming forward to provide truth to this "theory". That's all anyone has asked for, not just youtube or idiot sites. Evidence is what is needed to prove it was a CD operation.

They refuse to take Silverstein at his word. He's the one who used a CD term and got everybody's knickers in a knot.

[slowhand]

Originally Posted by gorillamom

I think what he is asking for is scientific proof that building 7 and the towers were wired. So far there is no evidence or anyone coming forward to provide truth to this "theory". That's all anyone has asked for, not just youtube or idiot sites. Evidence is what is needed to prove it was a CD operation.

I wonder how many miles of wire it would take and snake through those three buildings?..

[gorillamom]

Originally Posted by slowhand

I wonder how many miles of wire it would take and snake through those three buildings?..

Copper wire to boot. Every meth addict would have been right behind them removing it to sell for their drug habit. Happens here all the time.

[Duvidoo]

Originally Posted by slowhand

I wonder how many miles of wire it would take and snake through those three buildings?..

One thing ... it does seem odd to have wired building #7 (except there WAS some interesting stuff destroyed when #7 went down) and none of the other (closer) WTC buildings..

[sunflower]

Originally Posted by gorillamom

I think what he is asking for is scientific proof that building 7 and the towers were wired. So far there is no evidence or anyone coming forward to provide truth to this "theory". That's all anyone has asked for, not just youtube or idiot sites. Evidence is what is needed to prove it was a CD operation.

But he also claims that the only theory is CD, when the official version of events is theoretical too. There is no definitive proof that it is true, either.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by sunflower

He's keeping mum about it - trying to keep his chance of its publishing high, and away from too much publicity. I'm sure he'll tell everyone interested once it's passed review. From my understanding, review can sometimes take years.

Years are not likely in this case as this would be considered a very important paper if it passes the first steps in being accepted for review.