"goy" ? .... or is that supposed to be "what they got wrong" ? sometimes typos can be so weird.... anyhow, as to what is wrong with the video, the video makes assumptions about the "TRUTHER" point of view and then proceeds to knock down strawmen. part of the whole strategy is the alleged "experts" who go on record as simply stating that the "truthers" got it all wrong .... without any explanation as to exactly what the proper explanation for events should be. There are very much valid points in the "truther" arguments the Towers & 7 were most certainly destroyed by explosives and there was most certainly no airliners used as weapons note Shanksville & the Pentagon ..... what airliner? .... where is it?
Why do you expect to see an airliner after slamming into 24 inches of kevlar reenforced masonry at full speed,and the GROUND at the same speed?
Wrong. Roughly 95% of the plane in Shanksville was recovered as well as DNA from the passengers. Likewise, wreckage and DNA was recovered at the Pentagon that matched flight 77.
What does chaotic have to do with it? When a structural component is damaged or failed, the load above is redistributed to the other components. You fail to understand that a structure tries to function as a whole even when certain parts are failed or damaged. If I have a structure composed of 50 floors and I severe one column in the northeast corner and one in the middle of the 30th floor, the remaining columns of that 30th floor need to pick up the extra load that was distributed via the severed columns. The upper section's load does not change. If you had 20 people holding up a telephone pole horizontally and randomly pick 10 people to let go, the remaining 10 people, regardless of their location on the pole, will feel an increase in the weight/load. If you then start randomly removing the rest of the remaining 10 people, one at a time, there will come a point where the remaining people cannot hold the load and it will drop. What is it that you don't understand?
To expand on the pole bit, what if you have 20 people holding up a heavy pole and just for the sake of argument, what if the pole was horizontal and all the people were distributed along its length. Now pick 10 random people to remove, and if just by random chance, more people near one end get taken away, then the distribution is altered in that there may be a concentration of support toward the west end of said pole, and a lack of support toward the east end, so what do you expect to happen?
The folks nearest the concentrated load will feel more of a strain that those further away. The people closest to the concentrated load will fail first, followed by the the next in line. Once all the people "fail", the pole will drop due down due to gravity. They're all "connected" and will feel an increase in the load as each person "fails". The problem is, the people will all try to function as a whole to support whatever load remains up to a failing point. How can this be applied to WTC7? Do you know how WTC7 was constructed? Do you know that there were 3 special trusses designed and implemented in the lower level of WTC7? How about it being constructed using existing columns from the CON EDISON substation? What about the cantilevered floors? What I am trying to explain here is that you cannot simplify a collapse mechanisms by comparing them to other structures that are dissimilar in structural design.
You just did, by attempting to create the analogy with a pole being supported by people. I'm saying that in the case of WTC7 unless ALL of the support that held up the bit that you can see falling for 2.25 sec at free fall, unless ALL of the support went away at the same time, you would not see the event that was recorded that day. the bits about the utility sub-station (etc.... ) are only distraction from the facts.
Here is a fact for you: in the case of WTC7 unless ALL of the support that held up the bit that you can see falling for 2.25 sec at free fall, unless ALL of the support went away at the same time, you would not see the event that was recorded that day. Do you understand this, or not?
"pulled by the connections below it" Please elaborate on this, in a short form as it is, I get no INFORMATION from it.
Which word are you having trouble with? Are you assuming that gravity was the only force in play during the collapse? You keep referring back to 2.25 seconds as if that were magic phrase. It was not anywhere close to the entirety of the collapse.
The 2.25 sec, isn't magic, but it is significant in that the fall clearly indicates that there is NO resistance under the falling bit, people keep trying to invent cleaver ways that it could happen like that, but the REAL answer is that the resistance below the falling mass was intentionally removed by a well planned & executed Controlled Demolition. "assuming that gravity was the only force " to address this one, other than explosives, what other force would be at work here to produce the result.
I can help here. It's a way to sidetrack the discussion, and focus on something other than the poster intends, and distract from the point being raised. I wouldn't waste too much time trying to respond to it.
do tell, and do YOU personally have INFORMATION that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that 19 suicidal Arabs hijacked airliners & used them as weapons?
Proof that the hijacked airliners story is bogus Proof that WTC 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by explosives. need I say more?
In the case of every other airline disaster, the authorities have collected up all the bits and at the very least inventoried the recovered parts, in the case of 4 alleged airliner crashes on 9/11/2001 if there was an inventory of aircraft bits, why is it being kept secret? and given the pix of the crash sites, we are expected to believe that airliners crashed there? The "it could happen like that" attitude on the part of the mainstream media when describing any of the crashes, when in fact the odds of it actually happening like that are astronomical against. where are the airplanes? ALL completely destroyed by the crash events or the "collapsing" buildings? Question: why did WTC 1, 2 "collapse" Answer: simple, airplanes crashed into them. and people are actually buying this (*)(*)(*)(*) ? Note also that the video record of "FLT175" striking the south wall of the south tower, shows an alleged aircraft traveling its own length in 11 frames while in air, and then while penetrating a wall, also takes 11 frames to travel its own length. There is also the little matter of the hijackings, could 4 hijackings go off like clockwork, with the hijackers taking control of the aircraft. As long as the Captain has control of the aircraft that is one thing, how likely is it that any Captain would either so easily be physically overpowered by hijackers, or be coerced into giving up command of the aircraft to some criminal who may not even know how to fly at all and its the Captain's responsibility to handle the ship, ( or aircraft as the case is ) Any "plan" ( and note that 9/11/2001 has to have been well planned, if that plan was hatched in a cave someplace or in some posh office, no less planned ) that has so many opportunities for things to go wrong ( that is total show stopper wrong ) would simply be rejected. there is the possibility that the hijackings could go wrong in that if there was a street fighter, or a professional athlete, boxer, or for that matter an off-duty cop or a military service person, the hijackers could have been in for a lot more of a fight than they had bargained for and having the possibility of loosing that fight and spoiling the mission, that is just ONE bit against this plan, also the alleged hijackers were said to have flown the aircraft far outside the normal operating speed of the aircraft so near sea level and there was the risk that the aircraft at those speeds and near sea level, would be uncontrollable, or for that matter would experience mechanical failure. and there is still the lingering question of is it even possible to operate an aircraft in the manner that was alleged for the alleged hijacked airliners.
Lots of speculation on both sides of the issue. I still haven't seen any definitive proof that any of the alleged Saudi terrorists even boarded the planes in question. Where are the videos from the boarding areas showing who was on the planes? That should be pretty easy to produce. Got a link?
