Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11

On 17 Mar 2006 20:52:09 GMT, Laurence Doering wrote:

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.

In total there were 3 tanks, 1 for the OEM, 2 others for the Saloman, Smith
Barney generators. Given the location of the fire, the most likely souce would
have been the 6,000 gallon tank for the OEM office.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:06:21 -0700, "khobar"
wrote:

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

[regarding Prof. Jones' qualifications as a structural engineer]

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.

I don't think we disagree; my point here was simply that a Ph.D. in
the relevant subject is not a requirement to join a scientific
discussion, although it certainly helps. I didn't state this
explicitly, but I also based my comment on the fuzziness of boundaries
between scientific disciplines. There are some Ph.D.'s in physics that
learn a great deal about engineering structures (those that design
some of the huge detectors, for example) whereas others have no
exposure at all. Although each science has a "core" component, many
lay people don't realize that there are few if any bright line
boundaries anymore. I have colleagues who do "physical chemistry" in
Chemistry departments and Jones has colleagues who do "chemical
physics" in Physics departments, and most of them could do the exact
same research in either setting.

The "how" aspect of a Ph.D. means the holder has the capability to
bootstrap into another field. Your point is a good one; such
bootstrapping typically requires a few years of intense work. There's
no guarantee that a given individual has made that investment before
he or she starts publishing in a new field. Peer review (which appears
to have been weak in the case of Jones' paper) tends to keep people
from publishing in new areas without doing such work, but there's no
"Science Police" to check (which I think is a good thing; the
contributions of many scientists doing cross-diciplinary work so
valuable as to vastly outweigh the occasional dilettante).

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.

My observation is that it is mostly Jones' fellow travelers making
the ex cathedra argument; if Jones himself is doing so he's certainly
being more subtle than TRUTH.

[snip]

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.

Here again, I think we agree. You are evaluating Jones argument and
finding it lacking, and so you reject his hypothesis. That he has a
Ph.D. in physics is irrelevant, because you would make the same
evaluation if the argument were advanced by someone else with no Ph.D.
in physics. I would presume that if Jones had an airtight argument for
his hypothesis you would accept it because it was a better argument,
not because of his Ph.D. of his field. That's what I meant by my
assertion; evaluate the argument, not the credentials.

I would add as a side note that credentials can be a useful
consideration in how much caution is appropriate before making a
counterargument. If I were to argue with Jones about physics, which is
his field but not mine, I would make very certain that I studied up on
the physics before I criticized Jones. In the area of the WTC
collapse, neither Jones nor I are structural engineers, and it's
apparent even to a non-engineer that Jones has an overly simplified
view of structures, so I don't feel much need to study up on
structural engineering to point that out.

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:
[snip]
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?"

Exactly. My original critique of that piece took no issue with
Dr. Jones' credentials. I've personally made calculations based upon
several assumptions. All of them lead to similar conclusions, which
is that regardless of the underlying assumptions, you'd never be
able to tell the difference between a building that collapsed
intentionally
from one which collapsed "accidentally".

It is only when the good doctors credentials are floated as a
criticism of my analysis that I point out that his don't actually match
mine, and in fact his analysis suggests some lack of any
applicable expertise.

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:06:21 -0700, "khobar"
wrote:

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

[regarding Prof. Jones' qualifications as a structural engineer]

[snip]

I don't think we disagree; my point here was simply that a Ph.D. in
the relevant subject is not a requirement to join a scientific
discussion, although it certainly helps. I didn't state this

Agreed.

[snip]

My observation is that it is mostly Jones' fellow travelers making
the ex cathedra argument; if Jones himself is doing so he's certainly
being more subtle than TRUTH.

I guess I'd have to look deeper in Prof. Jones "work" on the subject, though
I'm content to go with your evaluation.


[snip]

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.

Here again, I think we agree. You are evaluating Jones argument and
finding it lacking, and so you reject his hypothesis. That he has a
Ph.D. in physics is irrelevant, because you would make the same
evaluation if the argument were advanced by someone else with no Ph.D.
in physics. I would presume that if Jones had an airtight argument for
his hypothesis you would accept it because it was a better argument,
not because of his Ph.D. of his field. That's what I meant by my
assertion; evaluate the argument, not the credentials.

Yes indeed, but one question remains: why would someone with as much
education and capability as Prof. Jones propose such a hypothesis? With his
background it makes no sense that he would fail to do even the most basic
checks that would reveal just how "out there" his hypothesis is. Could it be
some wild experiment he's conducting to see just who and how many would fall
into line with his hypothesis, or does he truly believe he's right?


I would add as a side note that credentials can be a useful
consideration in how much caution is appropriate before making a
counterargument. If I were to argue with Jones about physics, which is
his field but not mine, I would make very certain that I studied up on
the physics before I criticized Jones. In the area of the WTC
collapse, neither Jones nor I are structural engineers, and it's
apparent even to a non-engineer that Jones has an overly simplified
view of structures, so I don't feel much need to study up on
structural engineering to point that out.

All good points, George. Thanks for the additional comments.

Paul Nixon

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" wrote in message
...

I found this strangely relevant to the discussion:

LONDON, England (AP) -- Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke says he turned down
the chance to discuss climate change with Tony Blair because the British
prime minister has "no environmental credentials."
The charity Friends of the Earth, for which the singer is an ambassador,
asked him to meet Blair.

But Yorke said Blair had no record of championing the environment and added
that dealing with the governing Labour Party's "spin doctors" made him feel
ill.

"I got so stressed out and so freaked out about it. Initially when it came
up I tried to be pragmatic," Yorke told New Music Express magazine in an
issue out Tuesday. "But Blair has no environmental credentials as far as I'm
concerned."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Musi....ap/index.html

Sound vaguely familiar?

Paul Nixon

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:46:04 -0700, "khobar"
wrote:

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" wrote in message
.. .

My observation is that it is mostly Jones' fellow travelers making
the ex cathedra argument; if Jones himself is doing so he's certainly
being more subtle than TRUTH.

I guess I'd have to look deeper in Prof. Jones "work" on the subject, though
I'm content to go with your evaluation.

My assertion is based on Jones' public statements that he's merely
offering a hypothesis and advocating further investigation. Jones
hasn't made any statements along the lines of "I'm a full professor of
physics at a major university, what other evidence do you need?"

Here is one of the more amusing things about TRUTH's argument. If one
really want to argue based on credentials, a full professorship at a
major university is a much more exclusive credential than a Ph.D. in
physics. The ultimate credential is a named chair, e.g., the "Fred and
Ethyl Mertz Chair in Physics," but Jones isn't quite into that
rarified club. (Originally I was just being cheeky, but then I got to
thinking, if Fred and Ethyl held onto that apartment building they
owned in that nice neighborhood in Manhattan, they _would_ be wealthy
enough to endow a chair!)

[snip]

Yes indeed, but one question remains: why would someone with as much
education and capability as Prof. Jones propose such a hypothesis? With his
background it makes no sense that he would fail to do even the most basic
checks that would reveal just how "out there" his hypothesis is. Could it be
some wild experiment he's conducting to see just who and how many would fall
into line with his hypothesis, or does he truly believe he's right?

I have no earthly idea, except to note that Jones isn't the first
academic scientist to propose "out there" hypotheses in fields outside
his original discipline. Sir Fred Hoyle's panspermia hypothesis
springs to mind as one example.

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 ***

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:13:42 -0500, Dr George O Bizzigotti wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:46:04 -0700, "khobar"
wrote:

Yes indeed, but one question remains: why would someone with as much
education and capability as Prof. Jones propose such a hypothesis? With his
background it makes no sense that he would fail to do even the most basic
checks that would reveal just how "out there" his hypothesis is. Could it be
some wild experiment he's conducting to see just who and how many would fall
into line with his hypothesis, or does he truly believe he's right?

I have no earthly idea, except to note that Jones isn't the first
academic scientist to propose "out there" hypotheses in fields outside
his original discipline. Sir Fred Hoyle's panspermia hypothesis
springs to mind as one example.

Another is A.K. Dewdney, the longtime contributor to "Scientific
American". According to his personal web page [1], his areas
of expertise are computer science and biology. He has also
contributed to the body of 9/11 conspiracy literature with
something called "Project Achilles" [2], an experiment he
conducted to try to prove that it is either difficult or
nearly impossible to use a cell phone from an airborne
aircraft, and thereby to cast doubt on the official account
of 9/11 that says passengers on the hijacked aircraft made
phone calls.

Dewdney's conclusion, based on experiments with several cell
phones from the cockpit of a light aircraft flying in the
vicinity of London, Ontario, is that it is difficult to
successfully complete a call.

He does not address the possibility that cell phone reception
might be significantly better in the New York area than near
a small city in southwestern Ontario. He also ignores the fact
that many of the passengers' phone calls were made using the
Airfone systems installed on the airliners.


ljd

[1] http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~akd/PERSONAL/Personal.html
[2] http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:46:04 -0700, "khobar"
wrote:

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" wrote in message
. ..

My observation is that it is mostly Jones' fellow travelers making
the ex cathedra argument; if Jones himself is doing so he's certainly
being more subtle than TRUTH.

I guess I'd have to look deeper in Prof. Jones "work" on the subject,
though
I'm content to go with your evaluation.

My assertion is based on Jones' public statements that he's merely
offering a hypothesis and advocating further investigation. Jones
hasn't made any statements along the lines of "I'm a full professor of
physics at a major university, what other evidence do you need?"

George,

Do you remember Mike Rivero, one of the prime loons at the height of the
TWA800 wars here in ADA? He would do things like show a series of pictures
of a styrofoam glider in flight to "prove" something or other about the
plane's flightpath.

When critics started drilling on him, his response was "I was a NASA
scientist!" Well, that sounded pretty authoritative. But UseNet provided a
fair amount of information even back then, so I tracked down some of his
posts in other groups and his website where he listed himself as a "former
computer graphics artist for NASA" with the additional claim that he was
working on special effects for the then upcoming movie "Stargate."

NASA scientist, indeed. He never repeated that claim after I called him on
it.

There were some other strange things about him, too, like having more than
100 e-mail addresses located in or near where he lived (Seattle). This was
back in 1997 when it was unusual for anyone to have more than one or two
accounts traceable to them. But that's another story.

I agree with your observations about credentials and authority, but will
throw in the comment that some scientists, even biologists at universities,
believe in Intelligent Design, so go figure.

As to looking at the merits of an assertion and not the character of the
poster, that's certainly the ideal approach. However, if you don't know
enough about the field in question to make sound critical judgments about
the merits, the tendency is to look to some other information, such as the
trustworthiness of the poster. People with a priori positions tend to see
the poster as credible or dubious depending on whether they agree or
disagree. That's hardly dispositive on the merits, but most would feel
(rightly or wrongly) that it's better than nothing.

-- John Mazor
"The search for wisdom is asymptotic."

"Except for Internet newsgroups, where it is divergent..."
-- R J Carpenter

John Mazor wrote:

There were some other strange things about him, too, like having more than
100 e-mail addresses located in or near where he lived (Seattle). This was
back in 1997 when it was unusual for anyone to have more than one or two
accounts traceable to them. But that's another story.

Who is weirder, the person with multiple e-mail addresses, or the person
counting them?

In article ,
"John Mazor" wrote:

Do you remember Mike Rivero, one of the prime loons at the height of the
TWA800 wars here in ADA? He would do things like show a series of pictures
of a styrofoam glider in flight to "prove" something or other about the
plane's flightpath.

When critics started drilling on him, his response was "I was a NASA
scientist!"

Lots of people do research for the North American Silliness Association.