Trouble is, all the professors really dig their cushy jobs as professors and don't want to "rock the boat" Therefore, if the faculty at Purdue was aware of the variables, WHY produce & publish a video that depicts the optimum penetration mode for the airliner, rather than any other scenario? The scientific & academic community is being led around by the nose, by a fundamentally corrupt bureaucracy that has the power to fund or de-fund research & academic programs. Power corrupts ..... ( etc .... )
Oh, come on. You are just piling speculation on top of speculation in order to build the flimsiest of cases. They published their video based upon the video evidence. Did you not get that? Again, this is just erroneous speculation. Most research funding comes from the private sector and it is left up to the board to decide whether a venture is worthwhile pursuing. No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the public...(etc....) (para). Bob, can we please stay with what is known instead of idle speculation? I deal with facts, not opinion.
WTC7 descended at Free-Fall acceleration for 2.25 sec an airliner was video recorded penetrating a skyscraper wall without slowing down. an airliner crashed into a mil-spec blast resistant wall, and 99% of said airliner disappeared inside the building. an airliner crashed into the ground and buried itself such that the flight data recorder was located 15 ft below the surface. oh my.... Let me ask you something, if you were driving on the expressway, and witnessed two heavy trucks collide at high speed and the result of said collision was the total pulverization of both trucks, you would wonder exactly what is going on with this .... right? there are all sorts of levels of what triggers questions, for me, the level has been very much exceeded by the official fairy tale about 19 radical hijackers ( etc..... )
Er, not really, because I've seen the result of two trucks colliding head on and it is not pretty. One Prime mover was unrecognisable and the other was a total write-off. Both drivers were killed. Yeah, and that's good. If something from authority looks odd, don't be afraid to question, but also be prepared for answers you didn't expect, and be mindful of your own prejudice. That is the one to watch, and I have to as well when evaluating press releases and the like. And that is your right, but I don't see it the same way. I'm not convinced of any misdeeds on the part of the US govt. in this affair, and truly believe the security agencies were caught with their pants around their ankles.
As I have said repeatedly .... it really doesn't matter at this point WHO may be responsible, the actual physical actions speak for themselves and make liars out of all of the "news people" & "experts" who support the hijacked airliners scenario......
That sounds more like rhetoric than reality, Bob, and unsurprisingly, the weight of the body of evidence supports the explanation that 19 members of al-Qaeda hijacked four aircraft with intent to fly all four into buildings symbolic of western wealth, strength and US economic hegemony. This clash of ideologies has been going on for decades and has been escalating since the '93 bombing of the WTC. Sadly, 9/11 was another episode in this ongoing ideological war.
My original question was if you saw a collision where the vehicles were not only damaged but pulverized into tiny little bits...... You appear to have missed the point. Where did the explosives come from, for that bombing?
Which ones? Yousef was assisted by Iraqi bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin, who helped assemble the complex 1,310-pound (590 kg) bomb, which was made of a urea nitrate main charge with aluminum, magnesium and ferric oxide particles surrounding the explosive. The charge used nitroglycerine, ammonium nitrate dynamite, smokeless powder and fuse as booster explosives.[16] Three tanks of bottled hydrogen were also placed in a circular configuration around the main charge, to enhance the fireball and afterburn of the solid metal particles.[17] The use of compressed gas cylinders in this type of attack closely resembles the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing 10 years earlier. Both of these attacks used compressed gas cylinders to create fuel-air and thermobaric bombs[18] that release more energy than conventional high explosives. According to testimony in the bomb trial, only once before the 1993 attack had the FBI recorded a bomb that used urea nitrate.[19][20]
Really not an analogy but an attempt to get people to think about what would invoke incredulity. There are limits to what any given person will accept, given the common sense factor. TV has been proven to be a super effective selling tool, I submit to this forum that TV has been used to sell the idea that 19 Radical Arabs hijacked 4 airliners and managed to crash 3 of them into buildings.
Please think about this if you will, an alleged airliner striking a skyscraper wall, and the moment that the nose of said aircraft touches the wall it encounters resistance, now for an aircraft traveling >500 mph, a reduction by 10mph is not unreasonable and with that reduction in velocity the moment that the nose contacted the wall, this would result in massive forces to the aircraft, forces that no aircraft in existence could withstand, so the nose & body of the aircraft would be forced to slow down by that aprox 10 mph, but the inertia of the wings & jet engines would impose huge forces upon the structure of the aircraft, what magic kept the aircraft together in a coherent manner so as to produce that wing shaped gash in the skyscraper?
you just don't understand the science or physics involved Bob. Go pay a visit to MIT and sit down with professors and reputable physicists and they will help you understand things and clear all this confusion for you. Truthers are really something, they don't understand something but instead of educating themselves they attribute their confusions to conspiracies. It's really incredible reasoning, i tell ya
Please note that in the process of either penetrating the wall or crushing the aircraft, the event would consume at a minimum 60 milliseconds before the wings would have touched the wall, in that time what do you think was happening? 60 milliseconds is plenty of time for there to have been action as a result of the forces on the aircraft. have you ever seen any of those automotive crash-test videos, how quickly does the action take place? matter of milliseconds to break glass & deform metal.
It's amazing that after thirteen years, members of 9/11 truth could all be structural engineers by now and fully understand the situation. Nearly all truther claims are from ignorance or incredulity, and demonstrate limited understanding of how government works, how the academic community works, and how the legal system works.
and it's always the same thing, they have 0 EVIDENCE. When will they be able to come up with evidence? They cannot get their hands on a single piece of credible, significant evidence.
I have demonstrated recently that free-fall does not necessarily suggest a controlled demolition, but I expect the hardcore members of 9/11 truth will not even entertain any other possibility except for controlled demolition, and that course is not scientific, nor is it logical or rational.
How is it that ALL of the structure could have been removed out from under the falling mass, and ALL at the same time in order to achieve the result as observed? also, does anyone here have enough education or experience to address my post #365
If we are talking about 7WTC, it does not necessarily follow that all of the structure needs to be removed in order for the building to collapse as noted. "Please note that in the process of either penetrating the wall or crushing the aircraft, the event would consume at a minimum 60 milliseconds before the wings would have touched the wall, in that time what do you think was happening? 60 milliseconds is plenty of time for there to have been action as a result of the forces on the aircraft." Watch the Purdue simulation.
have them take this 'evidence' of a controlled demolition to MIT or the many reputable scientific associations, communities... they are too cowardly to face the real experts so they flood forums confusing people that have little background in these matters. The real experts (99.9%) of the world's physicists and scientists (with reputable backgrounds let em add) would tear these amateur claims to pieces, embarrass them and totally destroy all of there so called 'evidence'. Blues63, these guys use 'GOOGLE' as their main source of knowledge gathering and they think this makes them experts? hell, why does anyone bother going to college, grad school or getting PHDs if 'google' is better, seems like a cost savings here.
I regularly watch the Smithsonian channel on cable,and they have a program dealtailing air disasters,And one of the tools the investigators use these days to visualize what comes off the flight data recorder,is one of those 'cartoons'
Exactly, all reconstructions are computer models and simulations, which can be dishonestly passed off as cartoons. That tactic is childish.
