reply to post by Joey Canoli
Nice post Joey cant wait to see ANOK, psikeyhackr etc etc come back with, the problem with the internet is that individuals with NO repeat NO pratical
experience of a subject can be armchair experts,with some of them the most technical question they have to ask during the day is DO YOU WANT FRIES
WITH THAT!, but if they repeat a few things from a web site they are experts.
I spend lots of time on site part of my job is advising on and testing fixings on structures sometimes to destruction to keep engineers happy with
It would be intresting to see how many of these truther experts we have commenting on 9/11 threads have
a) any background in construction
b) any experience on site
c) or have any real idea on what they are commenting at all.
THEY tend to exaggerate a lot, 2 examples below.
"The concrete ALL turned to dust" one of my favourites they seem to just ignore ALL the other building products used in the towers that would have
caused dust!! There are many but if you get carried away on the conspiracy hype like they do they tend to forget about sheetrock,joint filler,
finishing coat plaster the sprayed on fire protection for the steelwork.
"They fell FASTER than freefall" another classic even when you see debris falling faster than the main tower on the videos THEY post.
We also get the claim that what appeared to be molten steel from the corner of one of the towers was proof of foul play well lets see.
This is picture of a plane that overshot a runway and went on fire look at the fuselage of the plane.Many examples of this type of incident on google
images if they bother to look.
An extract from the site re the above picture
The Boeing 707 erupted in flames just off the runway with a fire so intense it is melting the fuselage
The important word underlined. Yes the heat from the fire was intense enough to melt the ALUMINIUM fuselage what were the towers clad with thats
The real problem with 9/11 is that it had never happened before no tube in tube design had ever been hit by large passenger planes so its ripe for
That leads to joe public jumping to conclusions of what they think
should or what they think
would have happened, like all
I have put they think in bold because that is due to lack of experience.
I will give you another prime example of lack of experience that ocurrs on a regular basis on here in another thread. The Apollo Moon hoax threads the
NO stars in the Moon pictures.
Now any amatuer phoptographer would know that the Moon is lit by reflecting sunlight so guess what to take a picture of the Moon you use similar
exposure setings as a sunny day on Earth. This can be checked by taking a picture yourself of the Moon using the settings and you wont see stars.
Expose for the Moon no stars, expose for the stars an the Moon is an over exposed blob of light. Then a quick check on Astrophotography sites would
show pictures with exposure details to confirm this.
Now if you dont undestand this process you would think something is wrong with the Moon pics because they dont show what YOU THINK should be shown.
I think ANOK should delve a bit more into Newtons 3rd law when its not a simple nice closed system that he is thinking about!