WTC1/WTC2 perimeter columns vs. plane impact, math discussion...

First of all, knowing that the official story is WRONG
is a separate bit from having the correct explanation of exactly what happened.
Lots of people KNOW that the official story is a crock.
Its just that under the false algorithm of "well then tell us how it was really done"
all too many people simply fold and retreat into a mental state that is confusion
because they KNOW something is very wrong with the official story, but have
been assaulted with demands to explain what they have insufficient data for,
so at that point the forces of evil have scored a victory for the dark side.

sad really

 

Gam ole boy, truthers do not need to give you an explanation of every detail how it was done, only that the official story is incorrect. Only someone very naive would think an operation that sophisticated would use a one shoe fits all single method when demolition crews in every day operation use several methods? Thats a wacky uninformed position to take.

Anyway, on to the more fun stuff.

Here is a little problem for you to play with.

The WTC was a tube in a tube construction. Gawd awful strong.

So here is a silo which is a single tube concrete block design that has more than 200 degrees (out of 360 total) of its support removed and there is stands. The wtc had a mere 60 degrees of its support removed from the outer tube yet collapsed into itself.

In your best gaslighting opinion how the hell can this happen.

 

That's why less than 1% of the engineering community supports you. After almost 13 years. You've got NOTHING. You folks only exist in obscure internet forums and a couple of dead groups.

Nothing to be proud of to say the least.

 

Truly it is a battle for hearts & minds!

I would much rather be on the side of truth, than to support the
lies of a totally corrupt establishment. How do we sort it out,
how many times has the mainstream media reported total fraud
in support a corrupt "administration"?

 

Yes,I actually believe that stuff,and No,I don't trust everything they tell me,but I do trust them in this instance

And I AM questioning eveything......that truthers post.

 

Any chance that some percentage of the other 99%, could be fearful of retaliation if they were to 'step outside the box' and speak up? I submit that this has to be true.

 

'Selective' logic then? Yes, the 'pro commission' report depends on it, I suppose.

 

What are you blathering about?

 

and you think what? that anyone with a degree should have an overwhelming compulsion to (*)(*)(*)(*) away hours upon hours of their time analyzing 911 so that despite their qualifications hordes of self proclaimed experts that never made it into college (debunkers) come out singing nah nah neener neener as they do in disrespect of the engineers that have the balls and have already come out?

 

And not a single engineering school has built a physical model demonstrating how the north tower collapse was even possible.

IN TWELVE YEARS!



Not a single school has discussed having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings. The NIST hasn't even specified the total amount of concrete.

psik

 

Again.why would they need to?

 

The "collapse" events of WTC 1, 2 & 7 are totally unprecedented
( people are going to chime in that its totally unprecedented to have aircraft crash into skyscrapers )
HOWEVER, please note that it is NOT a guarantee of anything that there was an alleged aircraft crash into the towers. The statement that "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation" is a farce, WHY should "total collapse" be inevitable under any conditions at all, ( except for a controlled demolition ) ? .... Given the set-up conditions, there are a multitude of different out-comes and the least likely of those out-comes is the total destruction of the towers ( that is both of them )

 

To prove that people claiming to be scientists can do science.

But now we will have an eternal problem of teaching science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1nwiMUGbHY

9/11 has proven most people can't think for themselves.

psik

 

Speculation does not equal evidence.

 

So your qualifier for them to be scientists,they have to perform pointless tasks to make YOU happy?

 

You're reaching now..given the severity of the damage and fires,the least likely outcome would be that they remained standing

 

Is your qualifier simply to have said person raise their right hand and proclaim that all government accounts are 100% correct?

 

You often answer a question with a question?...you miss the point,AGAIN.

 

Not at all: welcome to the 21st century, we have math and physics.

 

You haven't proved this. You keep dancing around all the explanations.

And where has ANY truther given a "correct explanation of exactly what happened"? According to them, it was explosives. How quaint. Why are you not all over everyone who gives that "overly-simplistic" answer? Why not ask THEM to give more details?

 

The fact is, the manner of "collapse" for WTC 1, 2 & 7
indicates clearly that an additional source of energy
had to have been applied, Think about it, in order to
produce the result, that is the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7
every weld & bolt in the structures would have to fail
exactly on-time in sequence to produce that result,
otherwise you would get a result that most probably
would not have destroyed the building but left it
damaged & not destroyed.

 

How did every weld and bolt failing at the exact same time in sequence create the resistance needed to make the debris front fall at 64% of g?!

You just aren't getting this are you?

 

just exactly how,
that is without some form of malicious human intervention
would the tower simply "fall apart" as it did?
you expect ALL of the connections to simply let-go
in sequence & on-time in order to produce the observed result?

 

YOU can call it pointless. Why should true scientists object to PROVING that they are correct? If they refuse to prove then they are saying that other people do not have the right to think for themselves. They would be turning science into a religion and setting themselves up as a priesthood.

But after 12 years they would look bad no matter what. If they prove collapse possible then why didn't they do it in 2002. If they prove collapse impossible then it is even more important to wonde why they didn't do it.

psik

 

It IS pointless..plenty of other ways to prove what they say other than calculating the concrete and drywall used