IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
David L Griscom Paper, "Handwaving the Physics of 911"

dMz
post Jan 23 2009, 06:40 AM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...vid-griscom.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jan 23 2009, 06:57 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,987
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Awesome piece!!!

And witty - I really enjoyed reading it!
(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 23 2009, 11:00 PM
Post #3





Group: Valued Member
Posts: 3,773
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Yes, very nicely done.

I emailed that guy Garcia from his article at CounterPunch. He responded. I knew he was full of sh*t.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post May 18 2009, 01:48 AM
Post #4





Group: Valued Member
Posts: 485
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



He nails it here, slam dunk.

"And yet the real elephant in the room still remains Dr. Garcia's tacit assumption that the intact core columns (most of the original 47) and about 200 visibly intact perimeter columns between the two adjacent floors in question SIMULTANEOUSLY lost 100% of their strength at the precise moment of collapse initiation."

"In fact, Dr. Garcia's concealed assumption that all the support columns lost ALL of their strength – from floor to ceiling – at a single instant in time (much shorter than the 0.78-second 3-meter free fall time) is unsupported by any evidence, or even by any claim made by N.I.S.T."


N.I.S.T. never found evidence of exposives because they never looked for evidence of explosives. Why was that again? Oh right, because it wasn't a controlled demolition because controlled demolitions occur from the bottom up and these buildings collapsed from the top down.

The big pack of lies.

This post has been edited by JimMac: May 18 2009, 01:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hiram
post May 21 2009, 10:37 AM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 4-May 08
Member No.: 3,273



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 23 2009, 06:40 AM) *

I liked David L Griscom's "Handwaving"the physics of 9/11, in the same vein, on the niceties of scientific publications and peer review see (or read)

Intellectual Impostures:
Postmodern Philosophers' Abuse of Science
on a hoax article writen by Alan Sokal (Physics professor at NYU) in the scientific paper "Social text" and other (unintended) mystifications.
by Alan Sokal + Jean Bricmont
Profile Books 1998
A short summary on :

http://dannyreviews.com/h/Intellectual_Impostures.html

This book is ± 12 $ on Amazon. (No publicity intentended)

Hiram
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th June 2013 - 06:57 AM