|· *** [CLICK HERE] *** Disclaimer, Rules, Mission Statement · Portal||Help Search Members Calendar|
|Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )||Resend Validation Email|
Posted: Sep 26 2006, 08:28 PM
Member No.: 5,918
Joined: 26-September 06
Iíll make this brief such that Daniels doesnít think Iím here to debate weather 9/11 was and inside job or a true act of terrorism. To be honest, it was never my intention to start a debate here. As Daniels suggest, there is the proper forum to do that. If you would like to debate the issue then I would humbly request the rights to do so such that you and I can look into the issue more thoroughly. Who know, in the end, we may possibly add something meaningful to the discussion.
The issue for me, as a scientist and engineer, is only the facts. If youíre going to present a hypothesis, then please present it in such a manner as too not look as though it is supported completely by innuendo, supposition, and hearsay. If you release information like LC2 then you had better be prepared for the peer review process. Any scientist and engineer worth their collective weight in salt will never have a problem with a properly peer reviewed hypothesis. When will always have instances when there are scientist and engineers that cannot agree on something that is why it requires scientific scrutiny to establish and unbiased theory. That way no matter how crazy the hypotheses may sound after all the data is collected, compiled and presented there is little room for argument. Most scientist will take years to present a hypothesis only to be proven completely wrong shortly their after. You can tell me that every structural engineer and every physicist agrees with you but scientist canít even agree on how best to express the known laws of physics, but one thing we all agree on is that there are very testable theories on physics.
LC2 does ask some tough questions and I donít have any issue with the questions the movie raises. Iím simply pointing out certain discrepancies in the movie that I would like to see better explained before I decide one way of the other. I never said or implied that I accepted the official view and I havenít made a decision one way or the other. As engineer we sometimes just tell people ďtrust me Iím an expertĒ, I donít like that. And I will never tell you of anyone that since Iím and engineer I know more then anyone else. That too would be foolhardy. I will only swayed by the facts. I am a professional skeptic.
To quickly speak to the two points you raised in your replies. BTW these are all rhetorical questions the producers of the LC2 need to think about.
1) The idea of a Tomahawk cruise missile hitting the Pentagon came from the film itself. SO LC2 implied it I simply stated a know fact about those particular missiles. My point being that the timeline is at risk due to a temporal impossibility without some serious planning. So if LC2 thinks a missile hit the Pentagon then they may want to rethink what type it was. If it was a missile, then what type uses a turbine engine other then a Tomahawk? And if the data leads you to believe that in fact it was a Tomahawk, then how do you explain the time discrepancy?
2) Yes it is possible to have instances where debris actually moves faster then expected. Even faster then gravity would otherwise predict. One example that comes to mind is avalanches or landslides. They both have a base layer acting as a form of ďBall BaringsĒ this allows the top layer to move faster then say a snowboarder or skier moving down the very same hill via gravitational pull. Iíve seen landslides without any liquid catch up to cars moving much faster then gravity. So when you ask me is it possible for a building to ďfallĒ faster then predicted I have to say it is possible but I would have to run experiments to verify it.
Things you have to keep in mind:
1) Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable
2) And experts are only human