Steven Jones debates Leslie Robertson

Piggy said:
If you want numbers, I don't have them, but I also know that you have no numbers to demonstrate that a cessation of collapse is plausible. Since every bona fide investigator who's looked into the matter finds the non-cessation of the collapse unremarkable, on exactly the grounds I've cited, I will need a little convincing to believe that "it should have stopped" is any kind of counter-argument that should be taken seriously.

Try the documentary "Why the Towers Fell", for example.
Click to expand...

So you have done no calculations but you confidently assert it had to be total collapse??

I am just saying that non total collapse would be the assumed thing and even Robertson got on the backfoot when that was put to him.
 
Arus808 said:
visualling seeing what was there and actually testing what it was are two different things.

did that PHD do a test right on scene, to see if it was steel or just combination of several metals?
Click to expand...

I suspect a Ph.D, presumably in something relevent, would know the difference.
 
Laith said:
I suspect a Ph.D, presumably in something relevent, would know the difference.
Click to expand...

by doing a quick visualization and not a physical test?

did you bother to take any science class in elementary/middle/high school?
 
Arus808 said:
teaching something that is wholly without merit, not backed by evidence, or facts, and passing them off as if it were true, is fraud.
Click to expand...

He has never taught this, he wrote a paper and we are all entitled to do that.
 
Laith said:
So you have done no calculations but you confidently assert it had to be total collapse??
Click to expand...

the hundreds of investigators seem to think it was something that could not be stopped, unless ... well... for the act of some higher force...

I am just saying that non total collapse would be the assumed thing and even Robertson got on the backfoot when that was put to him.
Click to expand...

Maybe because
HE WAS not on on the investigating team so, he wouldn't have an opinion or otherwise on the subject?
 
Arus808 said:
by doing a quick visualization and not a physical test?

did you bother to take any science class in elementary/middle/high school?
Click to expand...

Why are you insulting me?

This person never said it was a quick inspection.
 
Laith said:
He has never taught this, he wrote a paper and we are all entitled to do that.
Click to expand...


funny, it was publicized that was what he was planning to do in his class before the semester started.

and publishing a paper, is as much going to be held against you, if you are professing to claim something and pass it off as the truth, withouth review. These are all things that universities look at for the employment of those who are going to teach students. IF a professor isn't going to follow the decorum to do research and have that research reviewed by his peers, what is he telling his students?
 
Gravy said:
Several examples in my paper on WTC 7, which is linked in my signature.
Click to expand...

No, when I said source I meant like notes from a disciplinary panel or an indictment, not your paper.

If he is a fraud, why would he so happily agree to debate a designer of the trade centre?
 
Laith said:
Why are you insulting me?

This person never said it was a quick inspection.
Click to expand...

BY Their quotes, you can tell they were making quick assessments and just posting their opion.

Of course, Im not going to believe that blog over the countless reports by investigators testimonies.

So, aGAIN why would Robertson need to know this?
 
Arus808 said:
funny, it was publicized that was what he was planning to do in his class before the semester started.

and publishing a paper, is as much going to be held against you, if you are professing to claim something and pass it off as the truth, withouth review. These are all things that universities look at for the employment of those who are going to teach students. IF a professor isn't going to follow the decorum to do research and have that research reviewed by his peers, what is he telling his students?
Click to expand...

Could you provide a link to the publication? I never heard he was planning to teach it...
 
Laith said:
No, when I said source I meant like notes from a disciplinary panel or an indictment, not your paper.

If he is a fraud, why would he so happily agree to debate a designer of the trade centre?
Click to expand...
Fraud. Deliberate deception and misrepresentation. If you think otherwise, read the examples in my paper and make your case.
 
Laith said:
He has never taught this, he wrote a paper and we are all entitled to do that.
Click to expand...

Not if you use you academic standing to lend weight to it, you're not.

(I can't believe I got dragged into this idiocy)
 
Arus808 said:
BY Their quotes, you can tell they were making quick assessments and just posting their opion.

Of course, Im not going to believe that blog over the countless reports by investigators testimonies.

So, aGAIN why would Robertson need to know this?
Click to expand...

I assume your not a physicist? Why would you so easily dismiss all these on site experts and Jones?
 
Laith said:
No, when I said source I meant like notes from a disciplinary panel or an indictment, not your paper.
Click to expand...
Read his paper. You'd have had your answer.

If he is a fraud, why would he so happily agree to debate a designer of the trade centre?
Click to expand...

Because he knows that he wouldn't be able to DEBATE one of the hundreds of invetigators, so he "picks" his battles, so that he "looks" good.
 
Laith said:
No, when I said source I meant like notes from a disciplinary panel or an indictment, not your paper.

If he is a fraud, why would he so happily agree to debate a designer of the trade centre?
Click to expand...

Is anyone else having deja vu here?
 
Laith said:
I assume your not a physicist?
Click to expand...
Does it matter? What does a physicist have to do with molten metal?

Why would you so easily dismiss all these on site experts and Jones?
Click to expand...

because he is a quack and thank heavens, he's not spreading his ideals to impressionable minds.
 
Gravy said:
Fraud. Deliberate deception and misrepresentation. If you think otherwise, read the examples in my paper and make your case.
Click to expand...

Did he lose his job because of what you cite in your paper? Is that what you are saying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom