While I find the manner in which the towers were destroyed extremely unusual, I can't say what the cause was. Wood's theory is just that, like any other theory. In her case derived from the highly unusual characteristics of the destruction of the twin towers. My interest and focus is in the Official Conspiracy Theory, not every other theory under the sun.
That's not what I asked you Bob. You like to toss around "reading comprehension" toward other posters who seemingly have trouble with understanding your posts right? Right back at you. I asked you specifically about the 3 bullet points I posted from her website and if your "metaphoric" meaning for your phrase "structures completely turned to dust". Do you believe the information contained within those bullet points? Judy uses the same "phrases" you have. I would hate for people to confuse what you say and assume you support Judy Wood's work if you do not.
(Edit: response removed, I just saw you answered the question) No you're not, you don't need to lie. Why are you asking me questions no one has the answer to? Why aren't you asking yourself if it was a natural collapse (as the OCT claims), how on earth is it possible that such a collapse uniformly accelerated at 2/3 G through its own massive structure with no significant hesitation and nearly completely destroy itself? The questions should be directed at the official explanation, not all the cockamamie theories out there and certainly not me. All these theories exist because very little about the official claims makes sense (to anyone with minimal intelligence who is genuinely interested). And they certainly make no sense to experts.
So you never changed your mind from day 1 then. Thank you. As an aside though, there is quite a bit of compelling evidence that the official narrative is not believable (most of it sourced from the official narrative): http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/ It's certainly your call to examine it or not.
I was referring to your nitpicking "completely turned to dust" point which was explained well before you brought it up again, not post #118, which is also not very relevant to the topic but still within the bounds of the discussion. I already did. It indicates to me that something smells quite putrid in 9/11 land. Because if it's not a natural collapse (which the video evidence just about proves), there aren't too many other choices as to what it could be.
Thank you for that Dave Thomas presentation. It would have been a bit more honest if you also posted Chandler's response. But since you didn't, I will: http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Response-to-Dave-Thomas.pdf
It's not explosives/thermite because there is no way you can achieve "2/3 G" collapse rate. Which is why you refuse to answer.
Good. Glad we got that straightened out. I'll be sure to post your quote of what you really mean "metaphorically" when you say "the structure completely turned to dust". That you think only SOME of the structure turned to dust. That's a great line by the way. "When I say the structure was completely turned to dust, it's a metaphor for "some of it was turned to dust, concrete mainly".
A layman is a person who is presumed to be ignorant and/or stupid so "experts" can make things unnecessarily complicated and get away with talking bullsh!t. I worked for IBM and have seen this plenty of times. The 9/11 Affair is a scientific joke. The Empire State Building was designed and constructed without computers but this trivial collapse problem can't be resolved nearly half-a-century after the Moon landing. Duh, did they use computers to get to the Moon? Could your smartphone do a better job. Probably not, couldn't handle the radiation. psik
1. It's not relevant to me what you believe or don't or claim to. 2. It's not relevant to this thread. 3. It's a lie that I refused to answer. I answered your post in the manner I wish to answer, not as you want me to answer. As already explained to you several times and once more, there was no collapse and the actual specific cause of destruction is unknown to anyone other than the perpetrators, certainly unknown to me. So your point (besides being a lie) is a non sequitur. 4. If you're not satisfied with the above (1-3), it's your problem, not mine.
Mostly irrelevant silliness. The evidence shows a massive amount of concrete and other material from the twin towers were turned to dust and both buildings were nearly completely destroyed. You are certainly free to post anything you like, whether it's true, half true or an outright lie (within the limitations of the rules of this forum).
I don't believe you ever answered the question posed by the topic of this thread. I know you don't believe the OCT. Did you initially believe it or did you immediately know it's a lie? If you believed it, when and what changed your mind? If you didn't believe it from day 1, what specifically caused you to disbelieve it? An answer would be appreciated.
How contradictory of you. You have no idea what caused the destruction/collapse, but you know 100% it wasn't a result of planes/resultant fires/and gravity. Keep up your charade.
When I said you refuse to answer, it was actually a metaphor for "Bob answers in the manner he wishes." That's how it works right? So I'll continue to use that metaphor going forward since I clarified what it means. So it's not a lie, right Bob?
Excellent, the feeling is mutual. From what I've read of your posts so far, there is no reason to take you seriously.
1. There's not one thing contradictory about what I posted. For example, no one needs to know exactly what happened on 9/11 to know the official narrative is a lie. Your logic is sheer malarkey. The video evidence clearly shows it wasn't a collapse. No one needs to know the exact cause to see the obvious. 2. I do know what didn't cause the above to happen based on the EVIDENCE and the science so by process of elimination, there is only one other possibility other than a miracle. That doesn't mean I claim to know how that was accomplished. Sorry I don't engage in YOUR agenda. Furthermore, if you read one of my earlier posts, I specifically asked posters not to ridicule other posters for their beliefs or non-beliefs. Stick to the topic or stay out of this thread.
Since you brought this up and claim it's an: And I responded with Chandler's rebuttal exposing Dave Thomas' shenanigans (which you conveniently failed to provide): Tell me in your own words how is it possible that all the interlaced columns in both towers were destroyed uniformly at a synchronized accelerating rate of 2/3 G from a "natural collapse" (if you can).
I was at home on 9/11 and a friend of mine called me about it. So I turned on the boob tube and started watching. I stood there with my phone in my hand and my mouth hanging open. I think on some level I regarded the buildings collapsing like that because of aircraft impact and fire to be impossible almost immediately. For the next two weeks about all I could think about was why it should be impossible. I focused on distribution of strength and mass almost immediately. The bottom any skyscraper must be stronger to support the weight above, but that tends to mean more steel which means more weight. Plus a skyscraper must be able to sway in the wind and the lower portion must cope with that. Kind of like the distribution of the Eiffel Tower but the French structure does not have the upper wind resistance problem of a skyscraper. So this brings up the Conservation of Momentum slowing down collapse time because of mass distribution. So I figured "The Experts" would solve this pretty quick and did not start discussing it on the Internet until 2006 and noticed that most experts seemed to be boycotting the subject or giving really stupid explanations like Bazant. So I regard to OCT as totally irrelevant to the physics and the physics proveing that even if Arabs hijacked the planes and crashed them into the towers they could not make them come down like that. The NCSTAR1 report mentions in 3 places that they needed the distribution of mass data to analyze the motion of the buildings due to the impact but then they don't come up with the data or explain why they don't. So I have had to change my mind about the competence and integrity of experts. psik
Thanks Psik. You're the only one so far who has posted in this thread who smelled a rat from day 1. I agree that the OCT is totally irrelevant to the physics. In terms of the 9/11 Commission Report, there is no physics involved and in terms of NIST, they invented their own version of physics. As far as experts, while I know you're not thrilled with AE911T, their experts are absolutely instrumental in exposing the OCT as a complete fraud. Your primary concern is the physics but mine is the entire official fraud.
Curiously, one of the first sites I was banned from for trying to discuss this was The Naked Scientists: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27655.msg291824#msg291824 I find people supposedly being scientific but not wanting good explanations of this very peculiar. psik
