It would appear that some people’s definition of LAYMEN is people who are supposed to believe that they are stupid and kept ignorant by experts.
I pointed out that the linked document produced by a supposed physicist does not say anything about the quantity of concrete even though the pulverization of concrete is mentioned three times. In actuality there were two types of concrete in the WTC. There was 150 lb/cu ft and 110 lb/cu ft. Was the amount of energy required to pulverize each type per cubic foot the same? How much of each type was there?
It seems our experts on this subject leave out information even though any “intelligent” lay people should be able to understand it. It seems to me some lay people choose to be deliberately obtuse while claiming to be intelligent.
A layperson or layman is a person who is not an expert in a given field of knowledge. The term originally meant a member of the laity, i.e. a non-clergymen, but over the centuries shifted in definition.
But it is certainly curious that atheists would be inclined to use a word that came from European religious tradition. But it is as though science has been turned into a religion by some people who make a point of keeping laymen ignorant. Like not having the Bible in a language people can read for themselves. Similar to not telling people how much concrete was where in a 400,000 tons skyscraper which held itself up for 28 years and withstood 100 mph winds on several occasions.
But after 11 years there would be a serious problem with admitting that airliners could not have done it since the experts should have pointed that out within a few months if it were the case. But if the official story is true why should there be a problem with everyone knowing the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level, and why can’t the experts build a physical model that can collapse completely?
Though I don’t know if CFI can be accused of being involved in scientific fraud. Maybe Scientific American could be. But how can scientific fraud be proven if the specific science being abused is not specified. If the fraud in biology?