Scientific Theory for Controlled Demo Thread.

[sunflower]

Originally Posted by Denie

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.

My understanding from him is that this is a scientific journal, that he has submitted it, and it is in the first stages of review. I didn't say he said it would take years, but that he did say sometimes the process itself can take years. 1, 2, 3, or whatever.

[Marie_D]

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

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..

Right, I hope that everyone here knows Building 7 was indeed a controlled demolition. I clearly remember that.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by sunflower

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.

No I did not make that claim. How many time do I need to say the same thing over and over!! I've not read the NIST report. I do not have an stance on it, one way or the other.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by Marie_D

Right, I hope that everyone here knows Building 7 was indeed a controlled demolition. I clearly remember that.

WTF? Were did you get this from? Are you saying people went into a building on fire and set explosives?

[Duvidoo]

Originally Posted by Denie

WTF? Were did you get this from? Are you saying people went into a building on fire and set explosives?

Not sure what Marie's view on this is but it would seem that if there were a CD it was not put in place ON 9/11 however you want to slice it.

[voodoo]

Garbage out.

So, no thermite theories, huh? That's how science is conducted?



Good one!

[Marie_D]

Originally Posted by Denie

WTF? Were did you get this from? Are you saying people went into a building on fire and set explosives?

Hello????? Didn't you watch the news that day?!? I remember what I heard and saw that day!!! Why is everyone suddenly changing the story? You believe Building 7 was NOT a controlled demolition? I thought that was a given.

Jesus, I have a headache.

Hope you all had a great holiday! See ya.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by sunflower

My understanding from him is that this is a scientific journal, that he has submitted it, and it is in the first stages of review. I didn't say he said it would take years, but that he did say sometimes the process itself can take years. 1, 2, 3, or whatever.

Yes, sometimes. Not likely with a paper of this kind. Most likely it will get fast tracked, if accepted. Remember, because a paper is submitted, this doesn't mean it will be accepted for review.

[Circus]

Originally Posted by sunflower

NIST's report was not peer-reviewed.

I never said it was. I meant I'd read numerous peer reviewed papers on the collapse, as well as the nist report, fema, etc.

NIST did not write a sholarly piece. They wrote a gov't financed report on the collapse.
Peer review never happens under such circumstances.
I'm not sure if you fully understand what peer review actually is.

[Circus]

Originally Posted by Marie_D

Hello????? Didn't you watch the news that day?!? I remember what I heard and saw that day!!! Why is everyone suddenly changing the story? You believe Building 7 was NOT a controlled demolition? I thought that was a given.

Jesus, I have a headache.

Hope you all had a great holiday! See ya.

Nobody has said that wtc7 was a controlled demolition. Silverstein once said that they decided to "pull" it. He claims he meant "pull out the firemen" because it was in danger of collapse. Conspiracy theorists claim he meant "rig it with explosives and demolish it".

But there has never been an official stance claiming the building came down in a CD.