Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
You cannot dismiss speed because it does not fit with your view of the "Facts".
|
I don't dismiss the speed for those reasons. I dismiss it because regardless or the speed of the impact, it wouldn't have made a difference to the damage or the resulting effect to the building/s...
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Just because some pilots disagree doesn't mean they are right. Radar and GPS data make it easy to know the speed.
|
Well if you want to venture into other areas of speculation, most of the engineers and pilots in question refer to the maneuvers as extraordinary.
Radar and GPS data will not testify to whether an airframe's operator is human or programmed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Exactly how many supporting beams have to be wiped out before it would infect the integrity of the building?
|
This is a good question I don't have the answer off the top of my head. What I do know is that steel of this sort needs controlled and constant temperatures to reach the point of weakness or complete failure of support. Apparently on the order of three hours. This so-called rate is usually 2500°F, which none of the three towers reached in their intended periods...
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Oscillation did not destroy the buildings. Projections did not include the melting of steal beams. WTC was built in the 1960's before computer aided design. There was no possible way to simulate a plane crashing into it, let alone render it and the damage due to fire, especially in any great detail. "Projections" at the time, while I'm sure based on the best engineers at the time, were nothing more than good guesses.
|
"Projections" at the time and later (as late as 2010) were based on scientific detail and information. You should stop trying to cloud this info in disinfo....
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
|
Isn't that the energy created by explosives rather than mass/volume failures...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Your right, the government's version isn't consistent at all. This is because it's not putting out a story at all, but instead, smaller government agencies are trying to explain what happened. These government agencies do not have anyone telling them what to say, and they come up with their own, independent versions of what happened.
|
Wow. So rather than the "official" story which is put out by the govt. you're saying they're all saying something different? Why would that be? This is a single event coordinated by a single suspect and organization whose financing the 9/11 commission claims is not important and which you're now saying was actuated by a bunch of different groups? So who could have done it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
It's like ten people seeing a car accident from different angles. Ten people will come up with three or four explanations of what happened.
|
So why do you decide that the government theory/version/vision of facts is accurate? Since there are so many different versions, especially considering that before the firefighter testimonials were released no explosions were heard prior to collapse, for example, how do you make that decision? Faith in your government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
The truth is they are trying to explained what happened on 9/11 without having enough information, and only going on clues. They can't explain why steel bent because they didn't have a camera up there recording what happened during that hour.
|
You're right that they didn't have enough information. They were guessing before they had evidence. While they can't explain the way steel bent, and simply admit to it in the FEMA report as a "mystery", the NIST report simply ignores it all...
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
You can pick it apart so quickly because we don't have all of the answers - and we never will.
|
We can't have the answers obviously because for some reason the City of New York thought it was appropriate to remove the evidence and recycle most of it - though your suggestion that we "never will" is gratuitous and only serves to remove any consideration of a real investigation of the facts in the future...
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Not true at all. You assuming that only fire did damage.
|
Not true at all. I'm not assuming anything. I consider the facts that according to building designers and steel support construction, buildings such as WTC 1 and 2 as well as number 7 could not have collapsed due to the damage incurred by the foreseen airline impacts and fires which occurred...
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
At the moment of impact, some of the support was instantly destroyed while others were damaged. Yet other support beams were instantly supporting more and more weight. The already damaged beams, under a huge amount of stress, were then exposed to heat... Plenty enough to do further damage to the beams.
|
Your belief that exposure to the government's theorized amount of heat caused the building/s to collapse is no more than a religious aspiration - purely belief-based without a shred of actual scientific confirmation.
Whereas the opposite is true.... or truer...