jeudi 12 mars 2015

9/11 Physics Debate - Dr. Griscom wins. No top physicists support Bush Story of 9/11

There hasn't been such a rout since Clint Eastwood schooled the empty chair:
















YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE





EDIT: Sorry, I just realized this is the same video that Oystein was referring to in the "Energy is always a scalar, not vector" post. So perhaps in this thread we can discuss another of Griscom's arguments concerning WTC7: freefall -> zero resistance -> controlled demolition. My response to that has always been that broken columns provide zero resistance, regardless of how they got broken, and that the 7 feet of less-than-freefall that preceded the 2.25 seconds of freefall (and which "truthers" insist on ignoring) support the buckling hypothesis, not controlled demolition.



Well, no, that really doesn't warrant much discussion, either, does it. Perhaps we could discuss the psychology of why such an apparently intelligent and well-educated man as Dr. Griscom make such stupid arguments?



Well, no, that's not really a mystery, either, so let's just forget it...





via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1B8wM0C

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire