Excellent Paper

[pomeroo]

I ran across an excellent paper, "Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories," that deserves to be better known. The editing is sloppy, but the author, Mike King, addresses several points we've been discussing recently.

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

[nicepants]

I'm only partway through and it's a great read so far. Nice find, Pomeroo. I love this line:

it is the job of a scientist not to be fooled by appearances: a scientist knows that fool’s gold isn’t gold and the leaf-moth isn’t a leaf. A physicist also knows well that much of physics is deeply counter-intuitive, for example that heavy bodies fall at the same speed as light ones, that the earth rotates, is round, etc.

Truthers never do seem to understand when physics appears to defy "common sense".

[Architect]

I am trained in science but my day job for the last twenty years is in the visual arts. In the material below I have attempted to check and double check facts and calculations, but like all of us am prone to error. I would be delighted to hear from anyone who would like to point out errors of data or calculation, or errors in the flow of argument, and will be pleased to change the text and give appropriate credit. New evidence will undoubtedly come to light over time, and this may alter the known facts and the course of my arguments here or even reverse them. So much the better: I call that good science.

This is a good start. The CT lobby would do well to learn from it.

[Dave Rogers]

I've read it through a couple of times, and I think it's a very well thought-out and executed piece of analysis. I'd be interested to know what the conspiracy theorists think of it, if they ever do.

Dave

[Foolmewunz]

I've read it through a couple of times, and I think it's a very well thought-out and executed piece of analysis. I'd be interested to know what the conspiracy theorists think of it, if they ever do.

Dave


Not enough pictures.


They'll never read all that text. They need video with hiphop soundtracks, photoshopped pictures, and mindless Jack Blood/Alex Jones radio rants.

[3bodyproblem]

Truthers never do seem to understand when physics appears to defy "common sense".

To be fair, even us physicists have trouble understanding "physics". I still have trouble grasping quark "spin" of 1/2. If you spin it 180 degrees you spin it all the way around?

[twinstead]

To be fair, even us physicists have trouble understanding "physics". I still have trouble grasping quark "spin" of 1/2. If you spin it 180 degrees you spin it all the way around?

Hell, I have trouble even spelling phis...phyc...fis...physics.

[einsteen]

To be fair, even us physicists have trouble understanding "physics". I still have trouble grasping quark "spin" of 1/2. If you spin it 180 degrees you spin it all the way around?

I think it is 720 degrees for one turn... but that has nothing to do with 9/11

[3bodyproblem]

no,not for spin 1/2, but if you think this has nothing to do with 9/11 then you shouldn't be talking physics.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've read it through a couple of times, and I think it's a very well thought-out and executed piece of analysis. I'd be interested to know what the conspiracy theorists think of it, if they ever do.

Dave
I've referenced this paper numerous times against twoofers here on the forums, and every time they've flat out ignored that it was even posted.

[Mr.D]

Actually Einsteen had it right.

A (purely hypothetical) classical particle with spin 1/2 would have to be turned around two full rotations about its axis of symmetry before it returns to its original orientation.

Just one of those things that makes quantum mechanics fun.

ETA: In classical terms, A spin 2 particle would look exactly the same after a 180 degree rotation about its axis of symmetry.

[3bodyproblem]

Open mouth, insert foot. Sorry einsteen.

Shall i now define irony for you?

I'll stop talking now. That was really bad.