I don't have any heroes (other than my wife). And you are who with what standing? What's your name again?
Yup. What reputations? They're still cranks. Experts? LOL Controlled demolition is a illogical and irrational fantasy held and promoted by cranks. This fallacy is known as the 'argument from authority', and you dropped in the usual ad hom. None of that BS changes the fact that 9/11 truth has no sane hypotheses, no matter how many 'experts' line up to promote it. If truthers have so many 'experts' on their side, why can't they produce a valid scientific paper exposing the so-called lies of 9/11 instead of the usual empty rants? A: That would expose the scam? If they have so many 'experts' on their side, why haven't they interviewed the Firemen to clarify their comments of 9/11? A: That would expose the scam. Why aren't you guys asking Gage, Fetzer & Jones and all the other scammers where the papers are? Where are the donations going? Gage's European jaunts?
BTW: on the subject of physics, to make the entry hole that was allegedly made by an airliner in WTC 1 or 2, the aircraft would have had to displace at a minimum 3 tons of mass, do tell where did the energy to displace 3 tons of mass ( + overcome the friction, and actually break bits to make possible said displacement ) Just exactly where do you expect that energy came from? The speed has a lot to do with the magnitude of catastrophe that this should be, picture a plane on the taxiway and only traveling maybe 50 mph and a bird crosses its path and gets hit, not such a big deal .... no? OK, aircraft coming down from cruising altitude and traveling 300 mph and strikes a bird, now what happens? There are documented cases of aircraft being damaged by bird strikes. So now, having to displace 3 tons of mass, by an airliner traveling at 540 mph, and the airliner should just slide right on in like it had a lubricated condom ...... what?
incase you didn't know, most of the plane stayed inside the towers after it impacted. the parts that made it through were the wheels, enginers, and other heavy pieces. plus the fact that they hit windows.....and had nothing in their way besides windows on the other wise. the second plane hit to the left of center of the core columns.
Ok so you're nobody who calls thousands of credentialed experts "cranks" and you don't have the stones to identify yourself. You mean these firefighter "cranks"?: [video=youtube;nQrpLp-X0ws]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws[/video] [video=youtube;uor8NhUr_90]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uor8NhUr_90[/video] How about these cranks?: http://patriotsquestion911.com/ So let me think for about a nanosecond, who has credibility, you who calls himself "Blues63" or all these people? Argument from authority? Anonymity has no authority. Your only claim to "authority" is name calling.
About 70 thousand tons of force going from 500 mph to zero. Open space between structural girders. The plane shreds like paper upon impact and many of the structural girders do not survive. To you it 'appears' to slide right in but the visible destruction is beyond the impact point.
firefighters are not experts in engineering, architecture, strength of materials, or physics. brave, honorable men. But they are not experts in these subjects
The fact remains that in order to create that initial entry hole, > 3 tons of mass would have to be moved, how do you justify the energy required to move >3 tons of mass? Equal and opposite re-action, ever hear of this? also to address the bit by "Ronstar" "and had nothing in their way besides windows on the other wise." the wall of the towers was mostly structure and had at a minimum 3 tons of mass to be displaced to make the initial entry hole. There is no avoiding the fact that the airliner would have had to overcome the inertia if that >3 tons of mass in order to create that hole. also consider the fact that a 5 meter dia. airliner body had to squeeze into a space defined by 3.6 meters between decks. additional resistance to penetration. WHY should anybody believe: two airliners completely disappear inside the towers?
Did your boss teach you that? You know also that engineers are not experts in brain surgery, trust me on this, but look it up, I wouldn't want you to take my word for it. I can hardly wait for your next eureka moment.
There are cranks in all fields. Most firefighters there on the day think these guys are nutters. I can link you to threads on Firehouse.com where many firefighters discuss 9/11. There is much ridicule and destruction of truther canards by the firefighters on site on 9/11. Of course, truthers will tell you that the 'gubmint' 'got at them', or that they were never really there (the usual brain dead dreck we see). On another note, as 9/11 truth liberally uses quotes from the day as proof of their claims (the misinterpretation of the use of simile largely), why don't they try to track down the firefighters to confirm their claims? Are the truther handlers too scared of being exposed as liars to do this simple follow up?
Argument from authority fallacy. They are still cranks. To your second so-called point, why would a rational individual identify his or herself in front of an audience composed of largely conspiracy theorists and lunatics? Such a move would be insane and I already have a Holocaust Denier Nazi trying to find out who I am. I don't need to give hints as to my identity to any more cranks thanks. Most are not right in the head. Please think before you post such silliness. Argument from authority fallacy. Yes, he is undoubtedly a nutter and is arguing from incredulity, therefore a fallacy. Do you need others to tell you how to think? Yep, Fruitcakes to a man, all arguing from incredulity. Why would anyone take heed of such fallacious Logic? Don't hurt yourself. Argument from authority fallacy. You really love your logical fallacies. And there's the usual 'Bob bilge' attack. Ok, I can play your stupid game: We have all the engineers employed by the NIST, as well as the many firms that received contracts to carry out certain aspects of the investigation, and then we have a guy called Bob, who libels these people with accusations of fraud without ever proving a word of his rants. Hmmm? Credibility? You're playing a moronic and fallacious game. Give it up.
Here's one of them. 9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
from post #6 So if I arrive home and I see my house has been ransacked, was my house not really ransacked because I don't know the names of the people who ransacked it? Does the fact that the valuables are gone and there's stuff strewn all over the place become invalid because I don't know the names of the people who did it? Go back and look at this info again. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456423&p=1066183060#post1066183060 Here's something I wish I'd included in the above link. http://www.911-strike.com/ldsxox1.gif Here's another good response to Ronstar's post. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=457898&p=1066220319#post1066220319
And here's another confronted by a physics teacher sounding like a babbling fool caught with his pants down (starting at 1:40): [video=youtube;Rkp-4sm5Ypc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkp-4sm5Ypc[/video]
Credibility is extremely important, so I'm quite ok with you calling thousands of experts in many appropriate scientific and other disciplines "cranks", it only exposes your (lack of any) credibility. Name calling is and always was the highlight of all your rants.
you don't have thousands of "experts" on your side. - - - Updated - - - what a horrible and pathetic analogy. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. so where is your extraordinary EVIDENCE????
I wasn't talking about anyone on my "side", I don't have a "side" except for truth. Oh wait, you don't understand what that is. If you did, you wouldn't have started this silly thread.
