It does not matter what the alternative was, because at this point it is mere speculation.
The buildings collapsed. That is a fact.
What explains the motions observed during the collapse? Hmmmm?
If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II
- Thread starter Seymour Butz
- Start date
The buildings collapsed. That is a fact.
What explains the motions observed during the collapse? Hmmmm?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Far more interesting is the question why, when confronted by actual scientists, architects, pilots and engineers in this very thread among others you frequent, you dismiss everything,
Why is that?
I take it that you can't prove it.
Cole's video doesn't show accelerations similar to those of the WTC towers, other than gravity.
Your claim that the accelerations are similar is rejected. Therefore the video doesn't stand on its own, and it doesn't prove what it claims to prove.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 69,066
Because he only has a basic understanding.
Was the 9/11 CR a detailed study? How could it be detailed if it ignored massive amounts of evidence?
Was the NIST WTC7 report a detailed study? Are you sure that a report that contains a super secret computer model is detailed? Are you sure that a report that claims freefall but fails to explain it is detailed? Are you sure that a report that ignores massive amounts of evidence is detailed?
If you "know" the cause of the collapse, do you stop there, or do you investigate the entire collapse? Are there written procedures that describe the best practices for people who investigate collapses? If those written procedures exist, were they followed?
How can you have a detailed investigation into the collapse of three massive steel-frame buildings if you don't preserve all of the steel?
Hmmmm?
waypastvne
Muse
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 539
If you are still talking about debris ejected sideways out the building as it collapsed, the answer is simple:
Gravity + Mass + Air
Here is an example.
http://seismo.berkeley.edu/blog/seismoblog.php/1996/12/10/199
Gravity + Mass + Air
Here is an example.
http://seismo.berkeley.edu/blog/seismoblog.php/1996/12/10/199
What do I dismiss? Do I dismiss relevant facts, or do I dismiss guesses?
Please explain how your example has anything to do with the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. Has any scientific paper used your link as a reference to explain what was observed during the collapse? If so, please post a link to that scientific paper.
A basic understanding of basic physics is all that is necessary to show we are being lied to. Wait, you also need an open mind. That seems to be in short supply here.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
You dismiss engineering expertise in favor of your personal intuition.
Your claim is that Cole doesn't show accelerations similar to those of the WTC towers, other than gravity? Are you sure about this?
There were two experiments were gravity driven theories were tested. Did the motions in those experiments match what was observed? No.
What experiment most closely matched what was observed? What force was necessary to duplicate the observed motion? Was it gravity? No. The necessary force was created by firecrackers which removed the supports so that the collapse could progress all the way to the ground.
Each time you deny this, you prove that you are in denial.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Show examples of engineering fraud I should dismiss. Let me guess, you'll quote the frauds at AE 9/11 and expect me to believe them.
My claim is that you can't prove the accelerations were similar. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Your claim is dismissed.
Were all the accelerations similar? You can't prove they were. Without that you have no case to make.
The one with the pizza stands.
Yes, it was gravity.
That one doesn't match what was observed. No explosions were observed or heard as collapse progressed, even by those inside the tower. No upwards movement of floors like in the video was observed. It's not a match.
waypastvne
Muse
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 539
Can you use your basic understanding of basic physics and explain to us how your explosives work ?
C4 comes in rectangular block approximately 2 inches by 1.5 inches and 11 inches long, weighing 1.25 lb. When it is detonated it turns in to a gas containing a mixture of nitrogen carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, it still weighs only 1.25 pounds and has a volume of about 12 cu ft.
Can you explain the magic of explosives to us ? You say falling mass can not cause what we see in the videos, only explosives can, so explain it to us.
I think any rational person would believe them. You can choose not to believe them, that is your right.
Here is the simplest way to look at this.
The 9/11 CR and the NIST reports exclude evidence. They admit they did not do a complete investigation because they did not check for explosives. No, that does not prove explosives were used, it just means they did not check for them. They have made a computer model available that does not match what can be observed, and then they refuse to release the data they based their model upon.
On the other end of the spectrum you have AE911truth. They examine all of the evidence. They do everything they can to be completely open and transparent. Their conclusions do not support those in the official story. All they want is a new investigation.
Now, based on those two paragraphs, which side would most rational people choose to be on? I know you will pick the first because you can't pick the second. That does not change what the correct answer is.
I am not an expert. I am certainly not an expert on explosives. I will not discuss this issue. We need an investigation by experts to provide the answers you are looking for.
Thanks for the tell, though.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Your laymen opinion noted.
There's a reason it's taken them 10 years to only get 2500 engineers to sign their members list.
Your claim that no explosions were heard is not supported by the massive amounts of evidence that exists to the contrary.
Proof - https://youtu.be/MCSEDSSxdNs?t=1501
Don't take my word for it. Listen to the people that were there.
If you continually deny the evidence that exists, you will never be able to accept the truth. Your first step is to admit that the evidence you claim does not exist actually does exist.