so in your interpretation, its a total slam-dunk to have the floors give-way completely with no bias to one side or another, but go straight down? is that what you believe? Why should you expect totally uniform results from non-uniform input? Just for da 'ell of it, check this out ( start at message #631 ) http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...ressive-collapse-analysis-w-222-344-a-64.html Note that the most likely thing to happen in any massive vertical structure ( unless some other force is brought to bear ) is for the structure to topple over, NOT "collapse" straight down.
not JUST fires....Something you truthers just can't seem to grasp. And they weren't 'completely destroyed'
To address the "not completely destroyed" bit where is it documented exactly how much of either tower remained after the "collapse" event?
enough was left to tell what had been there....as well as the stairwell Why am I rehashing this with nospam's puppet?...all this has benn done already.
It is a fact that any number of first responder types be they police or fire fighters, have been told to keep silent on the subject of 9/11 under pain of being fired & banned from ever working in their chosen field. Can anybody here, write a justification for there being the total destruction of 3 skyscrapers that day, and in the manner & speed & totality of destruction as observed & documented?
THE ANSWER IS NO since 3 skyscrapers were not totally destroyed...also why would those event's need to be justified by Americans as we were the victims?
it's info wars...... http://www.infowars.com/ex-cia-chief-james-woolsey-handed-down-gag-order-to-911-firefighters/
Having to institute a gag order (in such a late a date as 2009?), and people fearing retaliation ought to be enough to cause suspicion at the very outset.
You mean to tell me that video shows what actually happened?! That the towers started collapsing from the bottom? Wow...
I'm not sure that anything they say is true, but you've got to admire the conviction of the no-planers.
Even in computer simulations, the most likely outcome is for the tower to either tip over, or not be completely destroyed. The most likely scenario is that the building would be not completely destroyed, however people cling to the fraudulent bit promoted by the NIST in that "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation" ..... Right, sure, you betcha....
Have you personally reviewed the evidence, in that to you there is sufficient wreckage/damage (etc...) at the Pentagon & Shanksville to prove beyond any doubt that there was an airliner crashed there? Have you personally examined the evidence of "FLT175" allegedly penetrating the south wall of the South Tower?
Show me these other computer simulations you are talking about. So for you are 0 for 1 as the one just linked does not match what actually happened. Nice try though.
Nope, and I don't plan on it. Makes no difference to me. I'm an anarchist. Regardless I'm going to hate on the state, I don't have enough engineering knowledge to assess the situation myself. I'm fine with being ignorant. I do like your conviction though.
check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU there are lots more, its just a matter of what evidence do you want to consider & what do you reject because it came from some "ew truther crap" web-page .... I know that nobody can be perfectly fair about things they hold intense opinions about, however, I have tried to be as Fair & Balanced as possible here. Please explain why you believe that the "only" out come of the collapse ( once collapse had started ) was for the building to be completely destroyed?
Can you explain to me how the above link supports your claim here below? I asked for links that you have gone to that show the tower tipping over or not being completely destroyed. That being said, what was you point in linking to it?
What really gets me here is the fact that you look at this video and take it to show what SHOULD have happened even though the dynamics and particulars of that video don't even come close to matching what actually is seen that day. That just tells me that you take whatever someone tells you as evidence as gospel without even studying it as long as it goes against the government.
I have, and it's not really all that convincing. Couple of tired photos that are impossible to ascertain when or where they were taken, without the scale of anything surrounding them that could help verify their authenticity (one of a a backhoe bucket with a rusty piece of something, and a hole in the dirt). That's about all that's ever referenced that supposedly 'prove beyond any doubt' of what happened there. As to your second reference, all we see is a plane hitting a building and the building drops about an hour later. Not much proof of particulars, for sure.
C Conviction or madness?[video=youtube;wmu0Fv1gI5c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmu0Fv1gI5c[/video]
