You claim it matches but there is the problem of Kinetic Energy being expended to damage components. Where does any damage occur to any pieces of Micks's model? His "floors" are held by magnets. I have to replace crushed paper loops to repeat my test. psik
This thread is about 9/11 facts, not the OCT, your theories or your delusions. And unfortunately your claim that you read an "engineering report" remains a worthless claim and a non sequitur and irrelevant to this thread since you haven't posted anything more than that. As to the video you keep peddling, the first few minutes parrots the OCT (which is of course just a theory, not part of this thread's topic) and is filled with obvious propaganda and not worth my consideration. But unlike you, I can only speak for myself, I speak for no one else.
Clearly I struck a nerve. I notice you remove almost all of my commentary. Clearly you refuse to watch all of the documentary. Many of your concerns are taken care of. Don't you want to conclude your posts by saying Allahu Akbar?
The only thing you did was advertise your devotion to the OCT. I always ignore/remove what I'm not interested in responding to (see below). Good catch Sherlock, I did explain why, did you miss it? I doubt it. The video did not begin with anything other than the usual OCT groveling and OCT skeptic bashing nonsense. So I doubt the rest of it took care of anything other than show what a ridiculous piece of propaganda it is and clearly not a documentary as advertised. It seems to be right up your alley though, so enjoy it but don't expect all readers to just because you do. (irrelevant silliness not worth responding to) As a side note, did you ever figure out what mysterious "engineering study" you were trying to peddle or did you just throw that phantom in because you believe readers are too gullible to request a source?
And this is the pattern folks. These types show up, full of anger and chock full of stuff, then we reply. They hate the reply. We say, check this out. They claim they spent 30 seconds, hate and sulk. They tell us ours is propaganda. Wait, that is what they bring to the forum. Propaganda to wit such as buildings secretly got exploded despite building security where explosives clearly would be noticed. Do they give us forensics of what explosives? LMAO Why would they? That might show they did research. We are told their story and then they spend the time mocking it when we reply to them. I posted a very well researched video lasting 1hr 20 minites. I screened it to ensure it really is fact based. And it is. But it got called propaganda. I got mocked over commenting I read an engineering report. That is not discussion. Removing the bulk of my comments would not bother me so much except when used as it then gets used.
This is what experts had to say: http://www.sustainable-design.ie/fire/NIST-NCSTAR-1-Collapse-Of-Towers.pdf They specify how much steel was in the towers but where do they provide that information on the concrete? But they took years to produce the report and more years have gone by since. Like the designers of the buildings did not know how much concrete the steel had to support. Tell us where the "experts" have provided that information since 9/11. Documentation from before 9/11 says it was 425,000 cubic yards. psik
This represents a decent study done on the two towers. Bring forth something like this next time. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html Note, this is a small part of the report, so use the link. But this gives you a taste.
Look at the better study, done prior to the removal of the debris. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
Yes it sure is Robert. You responded to MY post but you need to pretend you're part of a crowd because it seems to me you don't have the stones to speak for yourself. There's that pattern and this one: Defend the OCT daily and question none of it. Those two patterns are quite familiar to me. I can't disagree with that. It's nearly impossible to seriously discuss 9/11 with a disingenuous person. That's why I much prefer to discuss 9/11 with those who have significant questions/concerns/disbeliefs about the OCT, even if they believe it for the most part. Those posters are real to me. You don't fit that characterization.
I am undecided on the light pole issue. Because this was a false flag operation, I suspect deception also employed with the light poles, part of the staging. But I am undecided. Because there was no 757 at the pentagon, that could not be the cause of the light poles being down.
So wait a second... Your argument for invalidating Mick's model is that you think that in your model, energy is expended by the falling "upper section" in the form of damaging the paper loops, but in Mick's model, there is absolutely NO ENERGY expended by the falling "upper section"? You believe that it takes absolutely NO ENERGY to pull magnets apart or separate them? That's what you're going with? You're essentially saying that crushing a paper loop expends energy, but pulling magnets apart does not?
I'm saying AQ did not do it because nobody I'm aware of has proved that AQ did it. Words are cheap. They can say what they want, and you can believe what you wish to, but neither you nor anybody else has proved that AQ "did it". Close examination of all available facts and evidence show the official story to be untrue, impossible. Nobody has proved AQ did it, that's why I don't believe the story.
FYI, back when the Report from the 911 Commission was released, obviously depending upon exactly how the question was phrased, 85% of the respondents of one poll did not consider the final report to be accurate or truthful. They were skeptical of its findings. That shows a bit of common sense in action, because almost to a man, those participating in the Commission all stated in public that they "had been set up to fail." If you still believe that impossible fairy tale told by our "fake news" mainstream media, then the joke is on you friend. Much has been learned in 15 years, but don't expect to find it in our fake news mainstream media.
So all you're going to do is say that since you believe there was no 757 at the Pentagon, any evidence that shows it was a 757 you don't believe. Got it. So then how about you supply a piece of evidence that goes against a 757 impacting the Pentagon?
And yet you have presented no facts regarding why you believe this. I have just tried to present a debate about the light poles being knocked down by a 757, but you say it's not evidence because you believe there was no 757? So how about you present a piece of evidence that supports your belief that there was no 757 at the Pentagon.
There is no evidence that a 757 struck the pentagon, much less AA77. Don't you get it? The façade was virtually intact right after the "impact", and numerous people commented about that, including a reporter named Jamie who was maybe the first reporter on the scene. The NTSB supplied flight data recorder was highly irregular to say the least, and not authentic. This was a false flag operation, with all the perp-generated bits of fake evidence. Neither you nor the government has presented any evidence as to why I should believe the story.
I'm just boggled by your debating skills here. We decide to debate the existence of a 757 at the Pentagon by providing pieces of evidence, but you're going to say that none of the evidence I provide that shows it could have been a 757 is invalid because you know the 757 didn't exist at the Pentagon. I know you're not serious now and that this is pointless going forward.
Interesting! After reading your comment in red above, I see how this works with you now!!!! Thanks for opening my eyes as to how your logic works!!! Isn't it you who implies we shouldn't trust the mainstream media? See the red portions of you quotes below: But all of a sudden, because "Jamie the reporter from the mainstream media" commented on the facade issue, you now believe the mainstream media because it supports your beliefs. I get it.
I'll use your logic. Your evidence that it is not AQ's MOS and therefore could not have done it is a lie because I know AQ did it. Does that work for you?
The old reverse burden of proof idiocy. It's not up to the government to prove it was AA77, it's up to anonymous posters in a mostly anonymous forum to prove the government's unsupported and uninvestigated claim is not true. So where on those poles was there the chemical signature of a 757 knocking them down again? Oh right, there is no such thing.
Ask your self in matter of Pentagon following question and search the answer: "If it was not the Boing 757 which hits the Pentagon, what was it then which can cause the huge destruction and the huge fuel explosion when impact happened?" The point is that anyone who claims that there was no Boing 757 hitting the Pentagon has the duty to tell a workable alternative what hits there then! We have the official story about 9/11 and this is disputed by some people to be untrue and so they accuse that the official story is a lie. Basic of any law system is that the prosecuting side has the duty to prove and give evidence (that official story is a lie) and not the other way round, that the accused must prove the innocence ... means that it is not a lie.
Because their is no chemical signature of a 757 on the light poles? ... so now you want physical evidence? ... gotcha ... where is the physical evidence of even one thing that proves something else happened that day? ... that's a pretty elaborate scheme to not fly a 757 into the Pentagon and then knock down light poles with explosives, all the while with the highways packed with cars ... "OK Men, let's plant some explosives at the shear points of the poles and devise something to put dents in the poles to make it look authentic ... don't forget to synchronize your watches!"
