Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:25 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:

In article ,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:13:33 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a physicist
with a PhD.

That is nice that he has a PHD in physics.

That was not my point since he is neither an engineer nor materials scientist.
Two separate and only marginally related fields.

Although I have agreed in several posts of my own with Tank Fixer and
other posters who have objected to Truth's argument that because Jones
holds a Ph. D. in physics his hypothesis cannot be questioned, I did
want to address the question below, which is similar to those I've
seen from other posters.

Since he has this PHD in physics is he qualified to say discuss oceanography ?

My answer would have to be yes. At best, a Ph.D. is a degree that
teaches you how to do scholarly research. There are many Ph.D.'s who
have made important contributions in fields outside the one in which
they were initially educated. As an example using the two fields about
which Tank Fixer asked, D. James Baker holds a Ph. D. in experimental
physics and was Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration during the Clinton Administration.

For my money, the real issue is a bit more nuanced. A Ph.D. in one
field also gives one an intimate knowledge of the questions one should
ask in that field and the tools available to seek the answers. The
real risk for Ph.D.'s as they go out of their initial disciplines is
that they will miss key questions or be ignorant of key tools. Some
Ph.D.'s exercise an appropriate degree of caution as they venture
outside their fields, others don't. A major beef that structural
engineers have with Jones is his reliance on a single equation for
movement due to gravitational acceleration in a vacuum, apparently
ignoring tools that the engineers have developed to analyze the
complexities of failure in a large structure. Much of Jones' argument
boils down to "it fell too fast" without any consideration of "how
fast would it be expected to fall?"

I have stated before that Jones' arguments should be evaluated on
their merits. His credentials do not entitle those arguments to any
special deference, but neither do they disqualify those arguments
because his discipline is less relevant to the issue than some other
disciplines.

Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:25 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:

In article ,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:13:33 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a physicist
with a PhD.

That is nice that he has a PHD in physics.

That was not my point since he is neither an engineer nor materials
scientist.
Two separate and only marginally related fields.

Although I have agreed in several posts of my own with Tank Fixer and
other posters who have objected to Truth's argument that because Jones
holds a Ph. D. in physics his hypothesis cannot be questioned, I did
want to address the question below, which is similar to those I've
seen from other posters.

Since he has this PHD in physics is he qualified to say discuss
oceanography ?

My answer would have to be yes. At best, a Ph.D. is a degree that
teaches you how to do scholarly research. There are many Ph.D.'s who
have made important contributions in fields outside the one in which
they were initially educated. As an example using the two fields about
which Tank Fixer asked, D. James Baker holds a Ph. D. in experimental
physics and was Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration during the Clinton Administration.

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, George. As you said, *at best* a
Ph.D. is a degree that teaches you *how* to do scholarly research - it does
not demonstrates that you actually havedone scholarly research. So unless
Jones has actually done the research on oceanography he is no more qualified
discuss it than any non-Ph.D.

As I've seen in the past there are those who have Ph.D's who seem to believe
their word should be taken at face value merely on the strength of them
having a Ph.D. This seems to be what Prof. Jones is doing, or, at the very
least, what his "supporters" are trying to do for him.

Others, such as yourself, at least offer explanation and supporting text
whether your conclusion is ultimately right or wrong. I dare say your
version of Prof. Jones's paper would be very different even if your ultimate
conclusion was the same.


For my money, the real issue is a bit more nuanced. A Ph.D. in one
field also gives one an intimate knowledge of the questions one should
ask in that field and the tools available to seek the answers. The
real risk for Ph.D.'s as they go out of their initial disciplines is
that they will miss key questions or be ignorant of key tools. Some
Ph.D.'s exercise an appropriate degree of caution as they venture
outside their fields, others don't. A major beef that structural
engineers have with Jones is his reliance on a single equation for
movement due to gravitational acceleration in a vacuum, apparently
ignoring tools that the engineers have developed to analyze the
complexities of failure in a large structure. Much of Jones' argument
boils down to "it fell too fast" without any consideration of "how
fast would it be expected to fall?"

Prof. Jones has not demonstrated knowledge even within his discipline - for
a Physics Ph.D to content himself arguing "it fell too fast" is more than
sufficient proof that something is amiss.

I have stated before that Jones' arguments should be evaluated on
their merits. His credentials do not entitle those arguments to any
special deference, but neither do they disqualify those arguments
because his discipline is less relevant to the issue than some other
disciplines.

In my opinion, his credentials most certainly do disqualify those arguments
if all he offers as qualification are his credentials and nothing more.

Unfortunately, he's really not doing anything different than many other
"scientists", as I discovered a long time ago. Had he chosen a different
argument, one more in vogue and with stronger political backing, he'd
certainly have more than a few dozen supporters around the world. At the
very least, had he offered some evidence for his current argument,
distasteful as it is, he might be seen as possibly contributing to our
understanding of what happened. As it is, he's just another bozo wasting a
Ph.D.

Paul Nixon

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:42:47 GMT, mrtravel wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:39 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:


So you are approaching this from a predetermined point of view.
Just the very same thing you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of.

I would say you have the common sense of a house fly, to be charitable.


Not very charitable to house flies.

Doesn't it feel weird when you think they are watching you?

Flies are an interesting topic for r.t.a, since their eyes are wired to
their wings and they are very good fliers.

I'm posting from r.a.m where they haven't come up with a really good miltiary
use for flies yet. Maybe if they ever create a small enough anti-matter
warhead.

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:42:47 GMT, mrtravel wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:39 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:


So you are approaching this from a predetermined point of view.
Just the very same thing you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of.

I would say you have the common sense of a house fly, to be charitable.

Not very charitable to house flies.
Doesn't it feel weird when you think they are watching you?

Flies are an interesting topic for r.t.a, since their eyes are wired to
their wings and they are very good fliers.

I'm posting from r.a.m where they haven't come up with a really good miltiary
use for flies yet. Maybe if they ever create a small enough anti-matter
warhead.

Flies can be used to bug enemy facilities.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:08:30 GMT, "Wake Up!" wrote:

WTC burned for more than 7 hours while being fed about 6,000 gallons of
diesel.

Tell me about the 6,000 gallons of diesel! Was it in a storage tank?
Was it in the airplane?

Were was the diesel fuel?

by Tank Fixer Mar 16, 2006 at 04:34 AM


This brings to mind a line from a famous Katherine Hepburn movie,

" The Loons, the Loons......"



What is the title of the movie? It sounds good.

On 17 Mar 2006 11:28:46 -0800, lynn wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:08:30 GMT, "Wake Up!" wrote:

WTC burned for more than 7 hours while being fed about 6,000 gallons of
diesel.

Tell me about the 6,000 gallons of diesel! Was it in a storage tank?
Was it in the airplane?

Were was the diesel fuel?

In storage tanks in WTC 7, there to power generators for the New
York City Office of Emergency Management command center which was
located on the 23rd floor of the building. At least one source
says there were two tanks, each with a capacity of 11,690 gallons,
so there would have been quite a bit more than 6,000 gallons of
diesel fuel in the building unless the tanks were only between
a quarter and a third full.


ljd

lynn wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:08:30 GMT, "Wake Up!" wrote:


WTC burned for more than 7 hours while being fed about 6,000 gallons of
diesel.


Tell me about the 6,000 gallons of diesel! Was it in a storage tank?
Was it in the airplane?

Were was the diesel fuel?


It was in a storage tank at WTC7

How many jets do you know that use diesel to fly?

In article ,
on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:16:33 -0500,
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti attempted to say .....

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:25 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:

In article ,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:13:33 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a physicist
with a PhD.

That is nice that he has a PHD in physics.

That was not my point since he is neither an engineer nor materials scientist.
Two separate and only marginally related fields.

Although I have agreed in several posts of my own with Tank Fixer and
other posters who have objected to Truth's argument that because Jones
holds a Ph. D. in physics his hypothesis cannot be questioned, I did
want to address the question below, which is similar to those I've
seen from other posters.

Since he has this PHD in physics is he qualified to say discuss oceanography ?

My answer would have to be yes. At best, a Ph.D. is a degree that
teaches you how to do scholarly research. There are many Ph.D.'s who
have made important contributions in fields outside the one in which
they were initially educated. As an example using the two fields about
which Tank Fixer asked, D. James Baker holds a Ph. D. in experimental
physics and was Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration during the Clinton Administration.

For my money, the real issue is a bit more nuanced. A Ph.D. in one
field also gives one an intimate knowledge of the questions one should
ask in that field and the tools available to seek the answers. The
real risk for Ph.D.'s as they go out of their initial disciplines is
that they will miss key questions or be ignorant of key tools. Some
Ph.D.'s exercise an appropriate degree of caution as they venture
outside their fields, others don't. A major beef that structural
engineers have with Jones is his reliance on a single equation for
movement due to gravitational acceleration in a vacuum, apparently
ignoring tools that the engineers have developed to analyze the
complexities of failure in a large structure. Much of Jones' argument
boils down to "it fell too fast" without any consideration of "how
fast would it be expected to fall?"

I have stated before that Jones' arguments should be evaluated on
their merits. His credentials do not entitle those arguments to any
special deference, but neither do they disqualify those arguments
because his discipline is less relevant to the issue than some other
disciplines.

Good point, I should frame it more that Dr Jone's evaluation of the evidence he
presents is lacking.





--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:02:18 GMT,
Johnny Bravo attempted to say .....

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:39 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:

So you are approaching this from a predetermined point of view.
Just the very same thing you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of.

I would say you have the common sense of a house fly, to be charitable.

Not very charitable to house flies.


No ****..

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.