First you tell me that my story must have gaps in the information, and then you say "no gaps" ..... what is it? Can you elaborate upon what you mean?
Your "no gaps" response in a previous post left ambiguity as to exactly what you are addressing, please try to be more complete in your rebuttals & posts, .... leads to much less confusion if you are more complete in your statements.
Neither am I when it comes to KNOWING that 9/11 was an inside job. however in the course of attempted communication with you, I am frustrated in that you seem to be very brief in your rebuttals and that leaves room for questions as to exactly what you may have intended.
That is were we part company ..... I KNOW what the evidence clearly shows. thank U very much.... Have a nice day : )
Given the manner of the "collapse" events for WTC1,2 & 7 it is truly obvious that this was not a Gravity induced event. obviously people can believe anything they want, but the facts speak for themselves.
What facts? All you've provided are opinions based on your perception of logic and probability. No PHYSICAL evidence. No calculations to support what you THINK happened.
and you leave out the fact that the "collapse" event happened without any sign of energy transfer, that is no jolt or for that matter no slowing down of the downward accelerating mass as it pulverized huge quantities of stuff. the speed and consistency of the "collapse" event, that is the fact that in the case of both towers the "collapse" continued right down to street level.
You have yet to show your math as to why this is so. All you have done is speculate. The math, science and physics of the matter show your speculation to be wrong.
It really doesn't take pages of numbers to point out the fact that the WTC towers descended without any jolt indicating energy transfer. Note WTC7 also, no numbers needed, look at the nice even descent as the north & west walls fall straight down, why are people so resistant to actually looking at the obvious here?
You have calculations produced with a model that backs what you say? That there should be a jolt? I'm not taking the word of someone who has no background in structural engineering/design and is only going by "odd" and "probability" as their only evidence.
ROFL Are you talking about Proudfootz who pretends to be a hillbilly to demonstrate how stupid the 9/11 collapse issue is? If the full collapse is so simple then why hasn't any engineering school even talked about modelling it is almost 13 years? With 3D printers it should not even be difficult. psik
Why hasn't the 'truther' community designed and built a model that shows the impossibility? For that matter, why have they been unable to come up with the math to show it?
On the surface, engineering schools can state that they will not touch this one because its a VERY controversial subject and indeed people get really intense in defense of their pov. HOWEVER, on a deeper level, I think that the deans of these departments have stayed away from this subject because they KNOW that if a real engineering study were to be done, it would PROVE beyond any doubt that the "collapse" events of 9/11/2001 were NOT "collapse" at all but explosive demolitions.
You know that the dean of studies, would NEVER come out with anything so UN-PC ... oops! however, upon giving it some thought, its completely logical. If you were in a position of running the engineering dept, would you allow a HOT issue to be examined in your school? Think about it, an issue that could spark not only controversy but potentially open fighting on campus. People get really intense about this, I've seen street actions were people defending the Arab Hijackers story have offered to fight truthers and only by way of intervention by others was there not a violent confrontation. It is possible for an Engineering school to take on the task of examining the evidence of the "collapse" of WTC1,2 & 7 ..... but this sort of thing has consequences, and most people lack the fortitude to launch such an action, I'm not sure what I would do if I were in charge of said Engineering dept. The fact is, that arriving at the conclusion that 9/11/2001 was an inside job, opens up pandora's box ...... oops! now what?
is it a "theory" or can it be observed for certain the fact that in the "collapse" event of WTC 1, 2 there isn't any observed JOLT that would indicate energy transfer? You have seen the video, do you see a jolt? and if not, why not? because the building isn't "collapsing" its being blown up.
Go back to playing with your toy cars (or cardboard). You prove nothing by just stating the absurd over and over again.
All of this talk about mathematics but not demanding accurate data on the steel distribution to put into the equations? Hilarious! I have made a model demonstrating the physical principles of arrest. I even made it as weak as possible which we know a real skyscraper would not be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c Most of the so called Truthers are talking conspiracy crap instead of dealing with physics. An interesting distraction that. Can't help but wonder if some of it is deliberate misdirection. psik
