You're finally getting smart techpath, at least about 9/11. Not going there, I mean. You don't know beans about it, and you seem to think you can just make stuff up and nobody will notice. And you still can't name even one engineer free of conflicts of interest who has the guts to stick his neck out and endorse NIST's tower collapse sequence.
Yes, I understand that your constant pwning of yourself is tedious.
Thanks for bringing up fluoride. I thought fear of fluoride was just for nutjobs--"precious bodily fluids" and all that.
Guess what. The US government recently called for fluoride levels to be reduced by half in the water. China does not use fluoride. Israel recently terminated its fluoride program. In Europe only Ireland fluoridates. Looks like Sparty was on to something.
Since you are 80% wrong (and often just plain crazy) about 9/11, you have no credibility about anything.
Your belief that a hired expert witness on the WTC7 collapse is relevant to NIST's collapse sequence for the towers is a real hoot. Thanks for showing your desperation,.
Maybe he ran because of his experience in his previous arrests. Did that ever occur to you? Maybe he ran because he needed to get to work and he didn't want to take the time to get beat up at the police station.
Thanks for admitting that Dr. Bazant has never designed a high-rise structure.
Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, tells us that peer review is a measure of acceptability, not validity.
The expertise of your experts is irrelevant to your inability to name ONE engineer free of conflicts of interest who endorses NIST's collapse sequence for the towers. Dr. Bazant is not NIST.
Bazant's paper is not a definitive explanation of anything. Its assumptions are ludicrous. Its collapse mechanism bears no resemblance to what actually happened.
Is Dr.. B. Shyam Sunder a highrise expert? What expertise does he have? How about Dr. John Gross? How about Dr. Z. Bazant? What high rise structures has he designed?
You apply your standards selectively. Bazant's paper is not the NIST report, and approving a paper for publication is not necessarily an endorsement of its findings.
So you think hired guns provide a truly "independent" analysis? It is well known in legal circles that conspiracy theories do not fly in court, so these experts would have put that off the table.
The Aegis lawsuit was not an engineering report. The judge rejected the relevance of any engineering arguments.
It seems that your own non-answers qualify for your own EOD. You can not defend your ignorant positions and so you must resort to EOD and ignore as if that were admirable.
Perceptive observers have recognized for some time that in order for a black person to get ahead, he or she has to screw the other blacks. Obama is a case in point. Three of the six charged appear to be black.
What about Aegis? Do you have any idea what it's about? It's a legal ruling, not an engineering report. The ruling is that even if WTC7 was defectively designed, the designers are not responsible for its collapse. What is your point--except to try to give the illusion that you have one? You sure are good at strip-mining google for irrelevancies. Have you even read the FEMA report?
techpath, you haven't nailed me with anything. You haven';t even pinpricked me.
How do you get "credible reports" with no calculations? And yet NIST provides no calculations to back up its collapse initiation sequence. Maybe that's why you can not find ONE engineer free of conflicts of interest who is willing to endorse it.
But you very freely endorse that sequence even though you obviously have not even looked at the documentationl