18 years later - who ya gonna call? - husaberg or David Icke?
husaberg (KB's know it all bullshit artist) versus David Icke's latest book "Trigger":- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrDD...ature=youtu.be -
18 years later - who ya gonna call? - husaberg or David Icke?
husaberg (KB's know it all bullshit artist) versus David Icke's latest book "Trigger":- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrDD...ature=youtu.be -
While it's easy and quick to ask four questions.
Yet it takes much more space and time to answer them. Years ago I used to test concrete for a living. So i know a little bit about concrete.
So if you want to be sarcastic about the length of responses Why raise multiple questions, that you could easily answer if you actually looked up the subject mater.
Although I've already done so in the other 9/11 thread - I feel it bears repeating:
Certainly the Study is Transparent, but when you read the Methodology, you find that they deliberately cut corners to 'save time and computational resources', as such - it's validity should be treated as suspect.
Katman's point in the other thread that there was no such transparency with the NIST report is somewhat fair, but then if the above statement about computational resources is to be believed, it's a reasonable conjecture that the NIST model may have been done on a supercomputer and as such certain transparency wouldn't be applicable (since revealing the methodology would allow one to reverse-engineer the computational power and from there work-out what cypher-breaking capabilities the US has.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
I didn't ask any questions.
Traditionally they have ? at the end of a sentence.
If I wanted to know more about it surely I'd not be asking here.
I'll just go with a load of Saudis precision crashed two planes into the twin towers which then collapsed in a non controlled way and another relatively undamaged building also collapsed. As you were.
DeMyer's Laws - an argument that consists primarily of rambling quotes isn't worth bothering with.
If you're going to comment on the NIST report, then it is
worth actually reading the final NIST report:
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Le...AR/ncstar1.pdf
[Yes, I have a copy. Yes, I read it once it was published]
If you want interpretation of the NIST report, then go to the
AE911 Truth website, and watch their critique of the report:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/...sive-collapse-
theory
The video clip is 79 minutes long, but you can go directly
to the 72 minute mark to hear their summary of why the
NIST report is such a poor document.
Specifically point 4. Why ?
Because (irrespective of computational power that NIST
may have had available), their supposed analysis of the
collapse scenario stopped exactly at the point of the
initiation of "building collapse" - and never proceeded
beyond that point (to model the actual building collapse
process itself).
The old IT flowchart equivalent of "... and then a miracle
happens".
Had they done so, the consequence of such action would
have been to invalidate their own findings, and to make a
nonsense of their own report. [And raise uncomfortable
questions]
How so ?
Because to model the collapse process itself (faithfully)
would have demonstrated two things:
1. A building whose floors structural supports are supposedly
failing progressively (and its floors "pancaking") does not
collapse "in free fall".
Its collapse would be impeded, and the rate of acceleration
experienced during collapse would not be anywhere close to
that of gravity alone (9.82 m/sec sq).
Which was observed and measured. As per the video clips in
post #4 earlier.
2. NIST would have had to model one or more scenarios which
demonstrated that for "free fall" to occur, the effect of vertical
structural supports between floors within the buildings would
have had to be "completely removed".
And that this effect would have had to occur immediately prior
to and/or during the time of the building collapse itself.
How do you suddenly just "magic away" structural supports
between floors ? [ to be consistent with "free fall" ]
That's right. You don't.
I'm only aware of one process that could have accomplished
this outcome. A "controlled demolition".
The same conclusion that many members of AE911 Truth (i.e.
engineers, physicists, demolition experts) quickly came to.
Which of course leads on to the point about the reduced amount
of structural steel and concrete observed in the rubble piles -
and the vast clouds of pulverised concrete observed during WTC
building collapse.
And I don't even have to be a "conspiracy theorist".
There's a 531 page thread in Pointless Drivel covering off all of the above things you listed. With many-a-commentary on both the NIST report and the critique of it. I could re-hash the problems with a controlled Demolition claim - which include:
1: Triggering
2: Integrity of Explosives subjected to heat for extended periods of time
3: Lack of Explosions preceding the collapse (the 'jets of air' frequently cited occur DURING the collaps)
4: Lack of Explosions in general (when we compare similar controlled demolitions, even those in urban areas, the main blasting charges are still very much visible)
5: Once sufficient inertia has been gained, the deceleration experienced by the hitting the next structural support would be negligible - the same deceleration (for example) that your Motorcycle experiences when hitting a Fly.
6: Linking back to the above - there's a video on Youtube (that may or may not still exist) where someone did a backyard experiment to 'prove' the controlled demolition claim, which hilariously included a section whereby multiple sections of his model tower pancake collapsed, without one of his firecrackers going off, and all instantaneously
I could go on.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Yes, you could. But there's no need.
You don't need to explain HOW a controlled demolition might have been accomplished.
You just need to realise that only under the circumstances of a controlled demolition
could the building collapses have occurred in the manner observed.
So, to sum up.
1,thousands of people died in 911, incl people on the plane. Fact.
2, prob thousands of people were involved in coregraphing the explosions that brought down three buildings, none of whom have come forward to fess up. Opinion.
3, this was all done primarily to claim insurance on the buildings? Opinion.
My question is this, why didn't these incredibly clever people alleged to have orchestrated this alleged destruction, detonate their explosives to make it look like a plane flying into the building caused all this destruction?
Surely they could have just charterd a plane and filled it with explosives as well, would have been easier to cover up?
Only a Rat can win a Rat Race!
It was magic Sky Pixies.
You don't need to explain HOW it could by Magic Sky Pixies, you just need to realise that only Magic Sky Pixies could have done it in the manner observed.
Come on, I know you to be better than that. If you can't explain the How - when you eliminate the impossible etc.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks