According to those records, 2 of the planes do not have takeoff, taxi, or schedules for that day! Yet your saying I have to provide proof of those being the plane??
Actually, I was referring to the FAA registry information with the plane type registered for Flights 11 and 175. No, that wouldn't have any flight data on it. Ever.
You really don't understand how evidence works very well do you?
Yes. You provide it, we evaluate it.
I have already stated that MULTIPLE time.... Electronics engineer.
Thank you, I missed it before.
So you are not really very qualified to make structural judgments, then. You should at least have some math, though.
I have provided information.... The towers would have slowed and eventually stopped with several floors remaining visible. The reason for CD is to remove the resistance of the building so that it WILL fall all the way down otherwise, exactly what I just stated will happen.
That is your statement. Now I would like you to provide evidence for that.
That would take the form of some calculations. Please post them as soon as possible.
You will need to prove, mathematically of course, that the remaining floors could have stopped the energy of the collapsing floors. You will then need to prove that controlled demolition works by removing the resistance, and show the math involved.
Yes I did. The point I was making is that YOU people will ALWAYS complain about what infomation we provide. Yet you can provide many similar types of information and that is PERFECTLY OK! I have been over to this site many times. Some of the information I agree with and others I do not.
No, we complain when you provide information from conspiracy web sites without sourcing. Or when you misquote people. Or provide information out of context. Or ignore our questions. etc.
In discussing the insurance situation, we tracked down information about the actual coverage in place. We found out how much Silverstein stood to make, and we tracked down the information about the judgments. I provided insight from within the insurance industry about how cases are underwritten and risk decisions are made. There is a level of fundamental misunderstanding involved that says "Silverstein did it for $$$" but bases itself in lies and BS.
I stay away from discussing the physical aspects of the collapse because it is not my area of specialty. I have read the NIST report, and it makes sense from a layman's perspective. If you can prove that the NIST report is BS, then please go ahead. But you will need to
provide evidence, not just say things.
Agreement does not influence reality.
Again, the point is that YOU people select and chose what information is valid! If it does not come from a web site YOU agree with, then the information is from a "kook"!
No, I like to evaluate evidence based on its merits. I don't care who posts it.
You can't have it both ways. Either information that comes from someone who is NOT poised to make such determinations is acceptable to all or they are not! So if someone places a link, like this one
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/index.html, then don't make claims that it is trash! There is very viable information in there and some not so.
That's a blatant false dichotomy. Evidence is assessed based on its unique merit. Evidence that is good will back up observations, make accurate predictions, and be supported by other evidence. Evidence that is bad will do the opposite.
Talk that is not evidence will not make any predictions or explain anything.
That is my problem with your arguments. You haven't bothered to show us any direct links to
evidence of your claims. You haven't posted a single calculation.
And when you make mistakes, you just keep right on going. How much does a 767 weigh again?
