It's just the cherry-picking of evidence to suit a predetermined hypothesis. The Sandy Hook CTists are even worse IMO.
ROFLMAO The top 30 stories of a skyscraper can tilt 22 degrees and EXPERTS can spend THIRTEEN YEARS not mentioning the Center of Mass. And yet, the NIST uses the terms "Center of Mass" and "Center of Gravity" numerous times. Whenever they say "center of mass" they are talking about the aircraft. Whenever they say "center of gravity" they are talking about computer simulated components of the building. But there is no mention of those terms applied to the tilted top portion of the south tower. Now THAT IS SILLY! But you have the search the NIST report to notice it. psik
Fish don't roll over. https://www.accidentreconstruction.com/research/suv/rollovers[1].pdf The annoying thing about physics is that it is so universal and much of it is really easy to understand, except when the EXPERTS can't explain how skyscrapers can "collapse" in less than 30 seconds. psik
There are "peer reviewed" papers that allege to explain everything, however, have you actually read any of the papers that support the global structural failure of skyscrapers? Its just plain scary to see what is happening to the peer review process. Either SCIENCE as we know it is going away and the world is headed for another dark ages, or something has to change!
So modern science doesn't support your belief system, therefore modern science is a joke? That's some interesting reasoning technique there, Bob.
Science in and of itself, is fine, the Scientific method is alive & well, HOWEVER, the current crop of "peer reviewed" papers leaves a LOT to be desired. Professors supporting the idea that its possible to fly an airliner at >500 mph <1000 ft and slam the airliner into a skyscraper and make a wing shaped cut-out as the airliner totally disappears inside the building. and because said paper was written by a professor, it gets a rubber-stamp approval from all the other academic types who read it. The process is BROKEN! at present peer review is totally meaningless. The process started with the infamous Bazant paper. Crush up / Crush down .... REALLY PEOPLE, and in no way did it actually address what really happened! Academics need to show a bit of fortitude rather than being so politically correct! Big Brother sez 2 + 2 = 5 ....... SCREW Big Brother! stick to what is REAL.
Bob, that sounds more like an insane rant rather than a logical case to prove your point. Academia doesn't agree with 9/11 truth, therefore academia is in on it! Really, Bob?
This coming from the guy who puts out a video trying to show how the physics for the WTC towers SHOULD have worked, but then goes on to say that the model he used does not replicate the WTC towers. Go figure...
The V-2 could not replicate the Saturn 5 going to the Moon. It only reached London. The physics worked the same though. The lower parts of vertical structures must be strong enough to support the upper parts. Curious how people who say the north tower could collapse mostly straight down do not mention the importance of good data on the steel distribution down skyscrapers. Just BELIEVE brother and the skyscraper will come tumbling down. AMEN!!! psik
I cannot BELIEVE you just posted this! Thank you for proving my points! First, you have no clue as to what you are talking about and second, your video is garbage because of my first point. Yes the applied physics are the same, but the results are different! Why are the RESULTS for each rocket you mention above different psikeyhackr if the physics are the same? Explain this to me and maybe, just maybe you'll begin to understand exactly where your logic begins to fail and why your video is garbage. Using your logic, I could post a video of the V-2 rocket then say that because of the physics shown in this video, it was impossible for the Saturn 5 rocket to make it to the moon. Un-freakin-believeable!!!! Like I've said many times and you refuse to address. Using your same logic, If I wanted to see the damage result of two semi trucks involved in a head on collision, all I need to do is buy two Hot Wheels semi trucks and slam them together. Isn't that correct psikeyhackr? Maybe I'll bring this new test concept up to attorneys in the transportation field and they can use Hot Wheels cars and trucks to recreate accidents for the jury they are in front of. Should be a slam dunk for them!
So you think the "lower parts" of any tower are designed to be strong enough to support the "upper parts" of said tower when the "upper parts" are either stationary or in a downward motion?! Are you kidding me? You actually think structural engineers calculate and design skyscrapers for this?
I mean really! Does psikeyhackr not understand that he just proved why his video and it's conclusion are garbage?!
hirises have to be designed to minimum loading requirements according to law to be capable of withstanding long term fire in the event of sprinkler failure which is why every other building on the planet that has caught fire did not collapse completely into its own foot print.
Oh really? Can you link me to where you are getting that information? I would like you to prove that structural engineers design steel structures to withstand all possible damage permutations that any building may suffer in a fire when the sprinkler system fails and fires are not fought.
You are taking the ball too literally. I don't think it was really a ball, only that it was shaped like one. These lunatic news anchors claimed a plane went between the towers, but you and everyone in the world knows that no plane or missile could ever go between the towers because they'd be traveling way too fast to make those last second turns that this object actually made behind the towers. This type of drone is consistent with the ball close-up. Look how slow it's moving.:lamo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFPB_NTi2cs "There you see the plane...between the two buildings...and then you see the explosion...right there, unbelievable." https://www.google.com/search?q=sma...ei=0fntVObnJpGUyAS85YBo&ved=0CDMQsAQ#imgdii=_ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DahTYtdHLA&feature=related
I can only imagine the complex matrix of mathematics and voodoo you performed in order to calculate the speed of an object moving through 3 dimensional space using a series of 2 dimensional .gif images. The mind boggles.
7forever just private messaged me to say: By all means, show your work. How in the world did you arrive at this figure?
