Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LPS5 who wrote (10030)	2/17/2005 12:35:03 PM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Re: Is Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a "government [hack]"? You bet: Thomas Eagar, self-appointed expert extraordinaire How did an MIT Professor of Materials Engineering with a doctorate in Metallurgy and no professional experience in structural engineering or related fields become the media's most visible "authority" on building collapses? And for that matter how did he become the primary science consultant for the NOVA documentary on the World Trade Center? st12.startlogic.com Annotated transcript of Eagar's NOVA interview from 9-11 Research: 911research.wtc7.net

To: LPS5 who wrote (10030)	2/17/2005 12:40:51 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Mr e > Is Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a "government disinformation agent"? You can decide that for yourself. But nothing he has said makes me change my mind that WTC1 and 2 were blown up. Seeing is believing.

To: LPS5 who wrote (10030)	2/17/2005 12:46:32 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

RE: "Is Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a "government disinformation agent"?" Either that or a half wit, perhaps both. Why it is that academics tend to believe a small amount of knowledge, in a narrow field, qualifies them to speak authoritatively on subjects, far outside their fields of study, has always been a mystery to me, but they all seem to do it. Consider the statement: "Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer." He first admits he doesn't know diddly squat about controlled demolitions, then proceeds to claim he knows more it about than the experts. If you want an opinion from someone who doesn't know diddly squat about controlled demolitions, why not ask a fry cook at McDonald's. The results will be the same as asking Eagar. If you want an opinion from an expert, you will have to find someone with expertise in demolitions.