Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience

Archae

(46,831 posts) Thu Sep 1, 2016, 05:15 PM Sep 2016

How credible is this European group?

I would think not at all, since they STILL say the WTC was brought down by explosives planted in the buildings.

And yes, the article is from WND.

9/11 conspiracy gets support from physicists' study

Europhysics magazine report finds Twin Towers brought down by 'controlled demolition'

WASHINGTON – For 15 years, there’s been a small band of investigators who have questioned the idea that the Twin Towers in New York City collapsed because of the intense heat and fires raging following two terrorist-directed plane crashes.

But they have largely been dismissed as crazy conspiracy theorists.

Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.”

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/#vATSgZpHSU0GcVLa.99

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How credible is this European group? (Original Post) Archae Sep 2016 OP

They obviously have no idea how much prep work is involved Warpy Sep 2016 #1

It's not a European group William Seger Sep 2016 #2

Oh, for Christ's sake. I know only a tiny bit about such things, PoindexterOglethorpe Sep 2016 #3

I figured this, somewhat. Archae Sep 2016 #4

Editor apparently hoodwinked by pseudosciencey bullshit William Seger Sep 2016 #5

I think so too, just like Andrew Wakefield and his "research." Archae Sep 2016 #6

Warpy

(113,131 posts)

1. They obviously have no idea how much prep work is involved

Reply to Archae (Original post)

Thu Sep 1, 2016, 05:25 PM

Sep 2016

in the controlled demolition of a building that size, how noisy, dusty, and obvious it is, how much time it would have taken, and how difficult it would have been to preplan exactly where those planes would hit each building.

Unless you believe in magic, I'm afraid you're stuck with the official explanation.

William Seger

(11,057 posts)

2. It's not a European group

Reply to Archae (Original post)

Thu Sep 1, 2016, 09:52 PM

Sep 2016

It's three American "truthers" and one Canadian, and the article is the same nonsense they've been peddling for years, so no, they do not have any credibility. If you think the article might have any technical merit, then I suggest you wait for the inevitable feedback from people who know what they're talking about.

If any of the WTC buildings had been controlled demolitions, then virtually everyone in Manhattan would have known it immediately, and so would we from the distinctive detonation sounds in all of the videos -- like every controlled demolition video you will find on YouTube. It's a completely idiotic theory unsupported by any credible evidence or scientific argument.

PoindexterOglethorpe

(26,730 posts)

3. Oh, for Christ's sake. I know only a tiny bit about such things,

Reply to Archae (Original post)

Fri Sep 2, 2016, 01:30 AM

Sep 2016

and I know that to explain the collapse of WTC buildings by controlled explosives if total nonsense. For one thing, what it would have taken to install such explosives would NOT have gone unnoticed by people in those buildings. The other explanation, that they wer put in place at the time the buildings were constructed, overlooks the very clear time frames connected to such explosives.

In short, those who propose this nonsense are idiots.

Archae

(46,831 posts)

4. I figured this, somewhat.

Reply to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #3)

Fri Sep 2, 2016, 04:37 AM

Sep 2016

I just can't help but wonder why a physics publication would publish this.

Unless the publication has the same credibility problem WND has.

William Seger

(11,057 posts)

5. Editor apparently hoodwinked by pseudosciencey bullshit

Reply to Archae (Reply #4)

Fri Sep 2, 2016, 09:56 AM

Sep 2016

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.

The editor may have thought the article was "sufficiently technical" since it came from two retired professors and a mechanical engineer, but none of the authors have any actual training or experience in structural mechanics. On the other hand, qualified experts have refuted their technical arguments for years, as the editor would have found with a little research, using both real science and common sense. I predict that the technical feedback on this article will be brutal enough that the editor apologizes for publishing it.

Archae

(46,831 posts)

6. I think so too, just like Andrew Wakefield and his "research."

Reply to William Seger (Reply #5)

Fri Sep 2, 2016, 10:20 AM

Sep 2016

Reply to this discussion