Confused Truther physics with regards to Aircraft & Building impacts.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: wmd_2008

So NO comment on the missing evidence for your theory? Where are the fire weakened trusses?

That's actually pretty funny! I could keep trying to lead the horse to the water, but now I realise that the horse is just a confused donkey and not half as thirsty for the truth as I am. Cherry? No Whip? Yes!

The trusses were in the rubble pile. Now, they could be anywhere. The bottom line is that there was no demolition conspiracy. The collapse was a result of aircraft impact damage and fires. The details of the order of failure can be argued. Explosive demolition in the absence of any evidence is not a consideration except for those who have little knowledge of explosives and demolitions.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

All the debris from WTC - steel and otherwise was hauled to Fresh Kills landfill to be sorted and examined

Here is video showing steel being examined and pieces being saved for forensic analysis

www.youtube.com...

Rather long at almost 2 hours, but gives you sense of the process engineers went through to conduct failure analysis
of WTC

a reply to: firerescue

The bottom line is that there was no demolition conspiracy.

Sure. Not. Bottom line is that you expect me to blindly swallow 'your' story without any evidence whatsoever. Which is precisely what truthers are accused of in this threads.

That's actually quite hillaryous. Outstanding work!

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: firerescue

The bottom line is that there was no demolition conspiracy.

Sure. Not. Bottom line is that you expect me to blindly swallow 'your' story without any evidence whatsoever. Which is precisely what truthers are accused of in this threads.

That's actually quite hillaryous. Outstanding work!

"Not?" What clever phraseology from an original thinker.

You have swallowed the demolition conspiracy story without any evidence whatsoever. Unless you have actual evidence of demolition, there is no other option than impact and fire. Evidence does not consist of feelings, wishes, here say, and you tube video constructs.

a reply to: pteridine

Depends on how you dice it. There's lotta circumstancial evidence and a few pretty good studies with actual evidence for demolition worth the debate, we see that in the other threads.

I start to wonder if you guys really understood the little snipped I posted here, as Mr. Skilling seems to agree. His analysis said that the structure was designed to take all that, which is why he mentioned shaped explosives.
I agree with you that both theories need to be properly validated, but we have his structural analysis to work with. He wasn't sued for gross carelessness, thus it's save to assume that his analysis is valid and hot air doesn't change a thing. Which leaves us with option two if we're up to apply simple logic here, you did get that. Right?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pteridine

Depends on how you dice it. There's lotta circumstancial evidence and a few pretty good studies with actual evidence for demolition worth the debate, we see that in the other threads.

What "pretty good studies with actual evidence for demolition" are you referring to?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

The structure did its job it survived the impact BUT the thought was an aircraft impact would be ACCIDENTAL at a far lower speed with less fuel.

ANYONE that thinks thousands of tons of falling material impacting the floor below could be resisted by the bolts and truss seats is really needing their head looked at.

If that scenario could be recreated I would love to fil the building with truthers who claim the collapse would stop I bet NONE of you would risk it.

a reply to: wmd_2008

And here you go again, claiming Skilling and his str. eng. colleagues are just insane. You know why the whole pizzagate witch-hunt encountered some issues, right? It's unvetted allegations like the ones you keep spitting, just saying.

Kids, this is precisely the reason why nobody with a brain will take this thread serious. I'd love to debate Skillings work but you zealots have obviously other things in mind. Burn some books maybe?

If that scenario could be recreated I would love to fil the building with truthers who claim the collapse would stop I bet NONE of you would risk it.

Guess why the simulation of the WTC7 collapse is a matter of national security? No. Better shy away from an answer, again.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

You avoid answering anything it has been noted

a reply to: wmd_2008

How can we be sure a B52 hit the empire state building, is there video of the event happening?

Confused Truther physics with regards to Aircraft & Building impacts.

Another thread to demonize people who do not support the os fantasies of 911.

The os physics does not stand up to real scrutiny or real science. So if anyone is confused it is the people who push the OS, it's my "opinion" their information comes from pseudo science from the NIST report.

originally posted by: Informer1958

Confused Truther physics with regards to Aircraft & Building impacts.

Another thread to demonize people who do not support the os fantasies of 911.

The os physics does not stand up to real scrutiny or real science. So if anyone is confused it is the people who push the OS, it's my "opinion" their information comes from pseudo science from the NIST report.

You claim the NIST report is pseudo science. Are you in the engineering or construction field? What exactly do you base these claims on, is it personal experience and knowledge or is it youtube videos and truther sites?

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pteridine

Depends on how you dice it. There's lotta circumstancial evidence and a few pretty good studies with actual evidence for demolition worth the debate, we see that in the other threads.

What "pretty good studies with actual evidence for demolition" are you referring to?

Never a response? And I think it's sad a well written opening post, and this thread, is now ignored while a new post pushing a fake/out of context video gets all the conspiracists jumping on the crazy train.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pteridine

Depends on how you dice it. There's lotta circumstancial evidence and a few pretty good studies with actual evidence for demolition worth the debate, we see that in the other threads.

What "pretty good studies with actual evidence for demolition" are you referring to?

Never a response? And I think it's sad a well written opening post, and this thread, is now ignored while a new post pushing a fake/out of context video gets all the conspiracists jumping on the crazy train.

I really didn't expect an answer because they don't have one. The burning desire for conspiracy that afflict some folks trumps all logic, reason, and knowledge. Many have no technical skills and their recourse in a discussion is to merely repeat what they have read without comprehension.

I have yet to understand how someone can watch one of the collapse videos and say that the buildings fell at free fall speed.
When you watch the videos, you can see sections of the building detach and fall outside of the footprint of the tower. The sections fall past the building... the part of the tower that is still standing.
The sections of building that are seen falling past the outside of the tower are obviously falling at free fall speed.... going past the still standing lower part of the tower.

How can the tower have fell at greater or equal to free fall speed with that evidence staring one in the face?

a reply to: butcherguy

Your right, the towers fell slower than the rate of free fall. The truth movement uses near free fall now.

However: 1) all the time I have spent on ATS, I only recently learned the core columns of the towers collapsed slower than the floor system. Funny the truth movement hides certain facts.

2) the towers fell through the greatest path of resistance is crap. Large lengths of core columns were left standing for whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor systems.

3). For a bit, the truth movement claimed the parts of the towers that hit the ground first were propelled by explosives they claimed were fizzle no flash? Now they are trying to push fizzle no flash explosives caused lateral ejection. Look up Newton's cradle, you don't need explosives.


4) the heart of the truth movement is revealed in that they see what false narratives they can push as fact.

Funny how conspiracists like to let this thread drift away? I guess it dose not let them role play fantasy hero?

a reply to: D8Tee

B-25 not B-52. The wreckage in the building might be a clue.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I have two questions for you. 1st what is your best evidence of your theory? And what evidence would get you to change your mind if any?

a reply to: dragonridr

It's claimed that the Towers were designed to withstand an aircraft impact but most people take that out of context.

They did withstand the initial impact which would allow most people to get out of the building.

When they were built it was slightly smaller aicraft and assumed impacting by accident and more likely approaching a New York airport and a speed more suitable for landing, not a delibirate attack at full speed and full fuel tanks.

Also at that time induced loads due to fire were not calculated assumptions were made that has all change and if anyone thinks fire was not a problem why do building codes require fire protection and those were revised after 9/11.