Verifiable, OBJECTIVE evidence of explosives

jessicarabbit said:
Well Steven Jones is discounted here because hes not an engineer.
Click to expand...
Lie. We examine his work.

Why do you constantly lie, jessica? Is it that you cannot, or will not stop?

Seriously, what the hell possesses you to keep lying?
 
jessicarabbit said:
Really? Even though they attributed the parameter to the port authority in 1964. The caveat you site says they couldn't find the actual analysis but they know the parameters assumed in it.
Click to expand...
False. If you had bothered to read my post, you'd know that NIST said the opposite: they have no idea what parameters the 1964 paper may have included.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Really? Even though they attributed the parameter to the port authority in 1964. The caveat you site says they couldn't find the actual analysis but they know the parameters assumed in it.
Click to expand...

However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "... such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse" <snip>
Click to expand...

NIST report, page 55. Context crazy wabbit. I talked about context to you before.
 
Gravy said:
Lie. We examine his work.

Why do you constantly lie, jessica? Is it that you cannot, or will not stop?

Seriously, what the hell possesses you to keep lying?
Click to expand...

A quik use of the search function drew this quote from beachnut:

cold fusion is his game, he has changed from only Thermite to RDX in many of his versions of his paper

his paper use to have the torch cut from clean up as his thermite proof

how do you change a peer reviewed paper over and over

he added RDX with his thermite when he learned CD does not use thermite,

his paper is really his trip on learning CD trying to prove his idea that explosives brought down the WTC towers

Then the real expert, the one and first hand expert said the following i posted back a few
Click to expand...
 
BTW:
dictionary.com said:
ob‧jec‧tive  /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhb-jek-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.
2. Grammar. a. Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles.
b. a word in that case.

3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics. (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera.
–adjective 4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
9. Grammar. a. pertaining to the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition.
b. (in English and some other languages) noting the objective case.
c. similar to such a case in meaning.
d. (in case grammar) pertaining to the semantic role of a noun phrase that denotes something undergoing a change of state or bearing a neutral relation to the verb, as the rock in The rock moved or in The child threw the rock.

10. being part of or pertaining to an object to be drawn: an objective plane.
11. Medicine/Medical. (of a symptom) discernible to others as well as the patient.
Click to expand...

Since it was capitalised (thus given emphasis) I thought that was the type of evidence you would be presenting. However, I get the impression that you are not familiar with the definition of the word. Look closely at number 5, and re-examine your evidence. Now, how "OBJECTIVE" is your evidence?
 
jessicarabbit said:
A quik use of the search function drew this quote from beachnut:
Click to expand...
Um, is that supposed to prove that we don't judge him by the work he produces? Perhaps you should read my WTC 7 paper, in which I point out several specific examples of his academic fraud.

Jessica. You say you have in your possession, right in front of you, information that refutes the papers I cited. These are serious, substantive issues, not little nitpicky things.

Will you now post that information for our review?
 
jessicarabbit said:
I shouldn't discuss science with amateurs. My mistake.
Click to expand...

LOL, amateur.

crazy wabbit. Open the NIST pdf. Search for "707". 4 hits in my case. Third hit returned the quote I posted above.

Obvious you are to lazy to do even such a simple research. You are an amateur!
 
jessicarabbit said:
A quik use of the search function drew this quote from beachnut:
Click to expand...

Posts like this make be think you're a chain yanker. You quote five sentences of specific complaints about his methods, and then at the end attribute the insinutation that he lacks expertise to some sort of pre-meditated bias.
 
jessicarabbit said:
I shouldn't discuss science with amateurs. My mistake.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of pros here you can debate w/, if that's the only thing stopping you. RMackey is a professional engineer, so is rwguinn. Should we start a thread for you to debate only professionals?
 
jessicarabbit said:
I shouldn't discuss science with amateurs. My mistake.
Click to expand...
Dunno about the rest of you, but I happen to be a professional scientist...

Still waiting for your credentials, jessicarabbit, since you seem to discriminate so severely on their basis.
 
And while we are at it: What exactly are Rabids academic qualifications? So far I have seen nothing from her which makes her assumptions, and that's all I'm going to call them untill I see evidence to the contrary, more valid than Gravy's. And according her own standards, that makes her a non-entity in regards to qualified critigue of the NIST report.
Not to mention that she's got no right to DO a film at all since she's not a professionel.........
 
jessicarabbit said:
Heres some cracking evidence. Read the pdf file and watch the video it is about It shows the explosion occuring in 7 before the north towere fell.
Click to expand...
Seven hours later, the CD was completed. That's some slow-working explosives, jessica! Bwah!

Seriously, will you post the refutation of the Bazant and Greening papers now? If not, why? Don't make this about me. We're all here to learn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom