OK. Hannibal, please post any of the photos of videos you said you have that proves most of 93 buried, since you are the "source" for that claim.
Well photoshopping some tons of debris coming out of the ground would be more evidence than you guys got so far!!!
Well you have to get your head buried out of the sand first. I just explained to you a major inconsistency with the alleged crash, that being most of the alleged wreckage is mysteriously absent. I still would like help on this one: The FBI said they recovered 95% of the plane and most of that was said to have been recovered underground (one quote was 80%, which seems logical since it looks like at most 15% of a 757 remained above ground), so I can't see how that wouldn't prove the govt lied if nothing was really buried. Can you help me out on that one?
Im not picking up what your putting down. If you believe the FBI is dishonest. Why dont you believe that 93 crashed and buried in penn and what information/sources informed your opinion?
If the FBI said most of the plane was buried (one source said up to 80%, which is logical for how relatively little debris remained above ground) and that amount makes up mostly where they found the alleged 95% recovered debris at, but not only was there not 80% of the plane buried, but it turned out that NOTHING was buried, what is a rational person supposed to make of that?
The Truth Movement has no credibility because it mostly talks about conspiracies instead of physics. I asked Richard Gage about the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers and he looked at me like I had grown a second head and then said that the NIST had not released accurate blue prints. Like how gravity works depends on somebodies blue prints. The Official Story believers have a problem because they can't explain how the collapse could happen on the basis of accurate data about the buildings because they don't seem to want the data either. They are basically saying that if there is no proof that something other than airliners destroyed the buildings then the airliners and fires must have done it. Why the buildings came down so fast is irrelevant. But a simple thought experiment demonstrates that is silly. A simple thought experiment which our engineering schools should have been able to simulate some time ago would be to merely remove five simulated levels from the north tower, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories floating in the air and 90 intact simulated stories below. Then let gravity take its usual immutably boring course. The bottom of the 15 stories would impact the top of the 90 in just under 2 seconds at 44 mph or 65 feet per second. The 90 stories should be 1080 feet tall so if the 15 stories could maintain a constant 65 ft/sec while destroying them the collapse would take 16.6 second plus the 2 seconds totaling 18.6 seconds. But that is significantly longer then most estimates of collapse time therefore the 15 stories would have to accelerate while crushing stories heavier and stronger than themselves. Now completely eliminating 5 stories to make that 2 seconds of acceleration possible is more damage than the airliner impact and fire could have done so we know that 60 feet of empty space never existed. But that thought experiment eliminates all argument about how hot the fires got because they could not instantaneously disappear five stories. The levels had to get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up. So how could 15 stories destroy all 90? Even assuming a 3 to 1 ratio of destruction, which I regard as unlikely, that would leave 45 stories standing which is not what happened on 9/11. So if that simulation is done and it comes nowhere near complete collapse then what is this nonsense that has been going on for more than TEN YEARS? So why hasnt any engineering school done such a simple simulation? http://psikeyhackr.livejournal.com/1276.html But after TEN YEARS this is not about physics anymore. This is about the social-psychology of Western culture. All of this talk about STEM education the nation that put men on the Moon but the distribution of steel down a couple of skyscrapers can't be discussed. Some people need to keep other people ignorant. psik
Suede, you have to understand there is no way I can evaluate this claim unless you cite source material. If you can not provide a source for the FBIs claim or a source for your assertion that nothing was buried at the crash site there is no reason to think that your assertions are anything more than the rantings of some anonymous fellow on a message board. I'm not trying to cast dispersions on you but without knowing the source material for your claims there is no reason to take you seriously.
Oh, I am just so upset by ridicule that avoids the obvious fact that skyscrapers must hold themselves up. psik
This kinda relates to the point of the OP. Many people in the truth movement argue that a few basic calculations can unequivocally prove that controlled demolition was involved in the collapse of the WTC buildings. However, this 'proof' has not been accepted for publication in any credible scientific, academic or news journal or paper. It is exceedingly difficult for me to believe that if the 'physics' argument could pass scientific muster it would still be unpublished a decade after the attacks. In my own personal opinion, at a very basic level I find the notion of controlled demolition implausible given that flying civilian airliners into the twin towers alone would have established more than enough pretext for our gov't to pick a few flights around the world.
I'm amused by your faux outrage. If you had proof, you'd be in front of a judge. Since you're here, we can safely assume you have no proof. You should find something to hold your story up.
The Laws of Physics do not give a d(*)m(*) about any judges. It is you people who think governments and man made laws are more important than physics that are idiotic. The United States should be laughed at for the next 1000 years over this nonsense. Everyone on the planet that thinks a skyscraper can collapse like that from the top is just plain stupid. psik
Is this more "controlled demolition" nonsense? http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/29/gsUYhrXonXQ
I know I'm laughing. You better watch out cooky. Psi almost went to MIT. He roomed with an architect. He played with model rockets in high school. He has a model made out of washers and used notepaper. This guy knows his stuff. (Unless you ask him about square cube law, Euler buckling or strength of materials. On those subjects he's a little weak)
