"Science is not proven or disproven in public debates."
True.
But putting it into the public realm might provide more information than we have now to put 9/11 to bed.
Additionally, it shows who is willing to stand up publicly for what position. The fact that noone has or is willing to for the government's version of 9/11 pseudo-science, speaks volumes.
Q-dip writes:
"To waste the scientist time in debating the psuedo-science of Jones and Co. would only give Jones the undue validation that he craves."
Waste the scientists' time? As if the 10,000 pages in the initial WTC report didn't waste their time! It didn't even mention WTC-7 and had its scope cripled to looking at plausible causes for the initiation of collapse and not what occured during the collapse.
"Undue validation?" If the science is invalid, let the scientific work be done to prove it invalid.
"Validation that he craves?" Shit, we all crave validation.
I think his would be justified more so than most, because mild-manner Jones effectively lost his academic position for pointing out and looking at what most in academia didn't have the balls to do, because they know which side their bread is buttered on and who funds 99.9% (give or take) of their research.
~TwentyTen
