As a paid government shill, my bosses would really be upset with me if they knew I'd much rather talk about music than Truthers. Any day of the week and twice on sundays.... On topic now. [video=youtube;wo9qQ9lAV5w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo9qQ9lAV5w[/video]
#1. Human beings cannot change the Laws of Physics #2. The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about human beings. Therefore: Conspiracies are irrelevant to figuring out whether airliners could totally destroy skyscrapers 2000 times their own mass in less than two hours. Skyscrapers must hold themselves up against gravity, therefore designers must determine how to distribute the steel and concrete. Analysing an event involving physics without knowing the initial conditions is total nonsense. All 9/11 Religions is total nonsense whether they involve government conspiracies or Arab conspiracies or not. psik
I don't really know what any of this means. Could you please clarify? I've read this 3 or 4 times and it still doesn't make sense.
For the last 11 years Psi has labored under the mistaken impression that "levels" of buildings are held in place against gravity with their own inertia. He has stated that he believes that someone with a high school level of understanding physics can solve the collapse of the building by diagramming the momentum of the zone of collapse. He has demanded that someone provide him with the exact mass distribution of the building from bottom to top so he can attempt to calculate the acceleration of the falling matter in relation to zones within the building that he has described as "levels". Since no one has been able to satisfy his demands to the level of precision that demands he has mistakenly concluded that structural engineers don't understand physics and that the buildings could not have collapsed as claimed by NIST. This is despite the fact that a fellow truther using a mass distribution that was a very good estimate of distribution was able to show that the momentum of the collapse exceeded the structural capacity of the building by an order of magnitude. Psi claimed that the truther's model was not precise enough and concluded that the truther didn't know what he was talking about. To demonstrate his argument Psi made a youtube video with metal washers and paper loops. If you're interested it's not hard to find.
As someone who brags about being rejected from MIT, I think he would be well served by taking this course. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/civil-an...ring/1-050-engineering-mechanics-i-fall-2007/
Uh, I don't think Psi is a "trougher", and it was he I was replying too. Thank you for chiming in with something that makes even less sense than the original post.
thats your opinion and you are entitled to it, however I totally rock at rooting out bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
I would have to say that you are a liar since I have never said anything of the kind. Provide a link to my saying that. psik
I'm a liar? Or how about: http://web.archive.org/web/20110220...ons-911-truthers-now-need-to-answer/#comments
I think the point is it is hard to prove that the image shows molten "iron" as apposed to molten metal of another sort. But if it was indeed iron, I cannot see how this would support your crazy conspiracy theory. No controlled demolition in history has left behind molten metal or 100 day fires in the rubble afterwards. None. It is known that due to an incubation effect, underground fires can become very, very hot, some underground coal fires have been clocked at over 3,000F. If we're talking about occam's razor, large fires causes buildings to collapse, should go to stand that large fires should continue to burn in the rubble for quite some time. But again, how does the presence of molten metal support your CD theory in the slightest?
NOT 'molten flowing iron' Massive fail. - - - Updated - - - There was NO thermite,ergo there was NO molten flowing iron.
