You say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor
None of the conspiracy "scholars" have passed a peer reviewed paper in a respected scientific journal saying the collapse of the towers was impossible.
|
This isn't true. There IS a peer-reviewed scientific paper:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm
Click "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor
[*]Many peer reviewed papers have been passed in respected scientific journals saying the towers collapsed from impact and fire alone.
|
No, there aren't. In fact NIST and FEMA reports weren't even peer reviewed because they wouldn't pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor
[*]The few scholars who say they are structural engineers and are conspiracy theorists are not working in the field.
|
This is wrong; on top of firefighters and family members of 9/11 there are active structural engineers, architects, demolition experts, and more:
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor
[*]Dr. Fetzer wrote books on JFK and moon landing conspiracies.[*]Prof. Jones was a physicist who worked on cold fusion and not structural or civil engineering.
|
Fetzer isn't the only one who doubts the Warren Commission; I don't know what you're referring to about moon landings (apparently, neither do you); Jones is well respected.
Fetzer has his own enemies in "the movement", and most fact-based researchers assign him a second-tier importance, though his research is apparerently sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor
[*]Prof. Judy Woods was a dental engineer and did not have a job in structural engineering.[*]Gordon Ross is not a structural engineer. None of his so called "papers" have passed peer review by a respected scientific journal. He hasn't made a single attempt in a respected journal.
|
Irrelevant, and you're disregarding any facts. There has been at least one peer reviewed paper regarding non-bin-laden "theories", which surpasses the number by people who claim that the buildings collapsed by airliner fuel and collateral dammage alone.
The rest of what you say is irrelevant or repeats the incorrect statements you made earlier.
Things like:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor
It's really hard to imagine that all of those papers that say it wasn't a controlled demolition have passed peer review but not a single paper has been put forth for review that claims it was a controlled demolition....
|
are clearly misinformed or misguided. Do a little
more research...
:D