3 of 51
3
Physics & Skyscrapers
Posted: 22 September 2011 07:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2715
Joined  2011-04-24
LanceThruster - 22 September 2011 06:18 PM

I think what saddens me most from my long association wth atheism, skepticism, and CFI and the CSH, is the lack of outrage from them in addition to my own, over the fact that the “latest theory” cobbled together and put forth as an “explanation”, however good or deficient it may be, utterly FAILS to address the issue of insufficient attention and priority and funds and transparency over the investigation(s) that if done in a serious manner, coud have put to rest a lot of the controversy (not all to be certain) and created a much more stable foundation to build upon as far as actually learning from the collapse (instead of themselves merely theorizing what they think happened) and other “missteps”, and assuring all of us that it was carried out in a way that did not rule out facts based on the troubling conclusions that might arise. Skeptics should have been at the forefront of the stolen election and the ability to generate fraudulent black box voting tallies (are those conspiracy, anomolies, or non-existent?). They should have been pushing for thorough investigation of the physical evidence of 9/11 from everything from the wreckage to the audio and video tape records destroyed or held back. They should be fighting for *more* transparency. They should have attained the experience to know when something smells fishy, and that people are lying and that sometimes it means something that conflicting testimonies cannot both be true and that maybe we could resolve a few of them before going off half-cocked to murder a bunch more innocent people.

They’d be very exacting for creationists, or political theocrats, or psychics and astrologers…but have a corrupt regime imposed on the American people by a criminally-bent administration surrounded by plundering profiteers concocting any number of fanciful tales in plain view (proof of WMDs, missing emails, no one knows who leaked Plame, will fire who did, Katrina response competent, voter role scrubbing, Constitution justa goddam peice of paper, etc., etc., etc.)...and they seem to revert to a faith based system of our government as honest brokers of truth and lose all desire to actually discover and know.

Sure it’s easy to go after the run-of-the-mill nutters; who’s going to argue that the rationale for witch burnings or claims of levitation have not been established if true, and can be dismissed if not? But these other “mysteries” are most definitely in the realm of the physical world and can be investigated, not with some psychic vibrations meter, but by the old fashioned gathering of data, even when others put real world obstacles (not some goddam black magic curse - though they might as well have) in the way of getting to the truth.

Remember Iran-Contra? The powers that be lied their asses off about selling guns to one enemy for money to buy and sell drugs to have money and weapons to channel to a foreign army that Congress had outlawed supporting, so that the flow was done in secret using powerful intel assets with the knowledge of high level officials that could have gone all the way to the top, except for the fact that the president was provided plausible deniability and someone else fell on the sword.

Remember the denials?!?!? Conspiracy theories! Our govenment would never do that! It didn’t happen. Well, it did, but we didn’t know. Well some did, but they were rogues and loose cannons. Yes, they had friends in high places but that is just coincidence, and on and on and on.

Same crap, different chamber pot.

Previous PROVEN conspiraces are not proof of current ones, but provide far better grounds for rejection of claims that we don’t and wouldn’t do such things. There’s quite a trail of evidence already established, and considering the pronounced lack of true skepticism has a propagating effect, there’s really no telling what the upper limit on such blatant deceit might actually be.

So…NO I don’t know what all the facts truly are….but I sure as shit know that I woud have liked to and I used to feel that I had a partner in the skeptics movement to pull back the veil and shine a light on the darkness. I don’t anymore. I just see them going after the low hanging fruit like everyone else. This could have been our moment to shine. Science and detective work f#cking proved what was long denied, that black box voting machines could be rigged. That right there should have rung some serious alarm bells to those still able to use facts to make concrete connections. Instead, we skip merrily on our way with a new type of witch hunt (the search for their nonexistence). Our skeptical tool kit appears to be all show and no go.

“Move along, nothing to see here.”

Fine, then. Lead, follow,or get out of the way. Do the math, and if not, don’t cut the legs out from someone else demanding that you should be able to work out the energy equations for reducing tons of solid material to a very fine and superheated powder by the kinetic energy of a plane impact (planned for in the design), the heat energy of the kerosene fuel (planned for in the design), and the stored gravitational energy coupled with the sufficient weakening from damage, heat, and catostrophic failures, of structural components engineered with load carrying capacities greater than the loads carried and built in redundencies and reinforcements.

Show that the energy is there to have the entire structure fall like a puppet with its strings cut, and have a great portion of the mass drift away in the breeze as if a child had blown on a dandelion puff. That these known forces, energy sources, and physical structure properties can be flattened and pulverized with seemingly no more effort than ramming a softball bat down a can of Pringles potato chips.


Nothing to see here. Nothing to learn. Nothing to show. They would never lie to us.

Never, ever, ever, ever, ever.

I guess that settles it. I’ll shut up now.

This is hard to get the gist of;  are you partial to the 9-11 conspiracy theory or not?

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2011 07:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

Mike,

It would not be flippant of me to ask which one (re: conspiracy theory). I feel the evidence is in plain view that we have been lied to on many, many levels. A new theory was referenced in the response to my earlier comment. It takes into account the explosions heard. Witness testimonies of explosions before were dismissed and it is my understanding that emergency personnel were prohibited from testifying to such. Did the 9/11 Commission report or FEMA or NIST include the reports of additional or secondary explosions? I do not remember. But probably pretty soon, those outlets ignoring or dismissing the explosions previously will now be johnny-come-latelys arguing how it’s yet more proof of how those pesky anomalies can be made to fit the official conspiracy theory.

I think that the official theory does not account for the energy needed to pulverize so much mass. The aircraft aluminum/water explosion theory provides additional energy, but from my previous link and excerpts from csi911.info, I think anyone supporting the current official theory, needs to actually calculate the maximum potential added energy this explosive compound could generate, and see if they still feel it is enough to virtually “dissolve” such a high percentage of the total mass of the building.

I’ve gotten so tired of debating secondary points, that the primary one of demanding transparency in all disasters of this nature gets overlooked. We need to have those putting forth their own conjecture do the math. How much energy is needed to unfabricate so completely a pair of massive towers, damaged in non-symetrical ways but collapsing in virtually identical manners. Think of how different the plane hits were, but the hazardous combination of the molten aluminum and water were supposedly equally as explosive with both, in addition to equally fatal to the steel superstructure, though the area of origination of these blasts would have been concentrated on dissimilar parts of the structure. WTC7 is its own special issue (of which the article says is the easy one to explain - nice meme planting there)

Scientific method works when it’s used. I do not think it is being used in regards to 9/11. My guess as to why is because someone knows an honest investigation might lead to questions someone doesn’t want asked. I’m sure that sounds cryptic, but it’s just the opposite. If you have no separate agenda in discovery, you go wherever the facts lead.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2011 09:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

A fire that has a chimney vent needs air pumped below it to melt metal.  But without a chimney vent that heat (energy) stays.  I imagine the fire needing more oxygen, and the hot air rising up, so the fire sucks the air through any crack in the walls, so the heat can’t escape through those cracks.  So if the hot air is the same temperature as the fire, but stays, and the fire heats more air (from the cracks in the walls), then something has to give, maybe the temperature increases?  I’m just guessing.  Ordinary kitchen ovens always have chimney vents at the top so that they can control the temperature well, otherwise what?  Perhaps a run-away temperature without a chimney vent?

[ Edited: 25 September 2011 07:49 AM by jump_in_the_pit ]
 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2011 11:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
jump_in_the_pit - 24 September 2011 09:36 PM

A fire that has chimney vent needs air pumped below it to melt metal.  But without a chimney vent that the heat (energy) stays.  I imagine the fire needing more oxygen, and the hot air rising up, so the fire sucks the air through any crack in the walls, so the heat can’t escape through those.

But the fire needs oxygen.  If the exhaust is blocked then unused air cannot enter.  The temperature can drop due to lack of oxygen.

Multivariate analysis is a bitch.  Ignoring a variable is nonsense.

Talking about collapsing skyscrapers without demanding accurate data on the distribution of steel and concrete down the structures.

Hilarious!

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2011 11:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

If CFI truly saw the value of science education, they’d be running a yearly 9/11 competition where the goal was to fabricate models meant to replicate the destruction patterns observed.

Entrants could approach the task from any view or theory they held and entres coud be judged by how closely the model fit the observed facts. Entrants would then explain/demonstrate how they achieved the results of their modeling. Participants would be free to choose the area of their focus. Teams could construct models for or critques of forensic approaches and preferred elements of investigation that help reduce bias, error, and allow for independent oversight. Participants coud devise a framework for future investigations that entailed sufficient transparency and education of the public to allow for greater understanding and confidence regarding the results.

This would do more to demonstrate the principles of physics, scientific method, and the value of openess in dealing with crisis situations than a decade’s worth of “dueling experts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2011 01:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
LanceThruster - 27 September 2011 11:28 AM

If CFI truly saw the value of science education, they’d be running a yearly 9/11 competition where the goal was to fabricate models meant to replicate the destruction patterns observed.

I am going to have to stop eating while I read your posts.

I nearly choked trying to swallow and laugh at the same time.

Darwin is more important than Newton because it is easier to use him to beat on religion.  Newtonian physics is for intellectual plebeians.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2011 02:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

psik, you keep talking about physics while not discussing the fact that you were challenged a couple of times at least on this website by physicists and engineers who demonstrated that you had your facts completely wrong. You had nothing to say to them of any consequence. FWIW I’m staying out of this because it’s been discussed to death, all the competent engineers have weighed in years ago, and the rest is just people trying to make names for themselves, as with UFOs or Bigfoot. The only difference is that in this case it’s also in extremely poor taste.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2011 03:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

The only difference is that in this case it’s also in extremely poor taste.

I do not understand what the rationale for claiming the discussion is in poor taste. We investigate tragedies all the time. Robert Ballard spent great gobs of money on locating the wreck of the Titanic. Cal Tech’s Richard Feynman was able to use a simple demonstration to illustrate the Challenger SRB O-ring failure so that the hearings could then move on to examining the culture of NASA management and decision making. I’ve seen PBS Nova’s and Frontline’s on manmade and natural disasters and scientific modeling for everything from erosion patterns, ancient construction techniques, architectural design, ship, aircraft, and spacecraft engineering, and so forth. Mythbusters has already declared the topic out of bounds. How sad, strange, anti-science and anti-intellectual.

Though I’m sure there’s some satisfaction in using nothing more than some handwaving and appeals to experts in trying to downplay just how poorly and unprofessionally almost everything regarding 9/11 was handled, the reality is that far too many questions remain unanswered. After the Southern California Northridge earthquake, there was quite a lot of activity repairing and retrofitting the freeway overpasses. I’m sure this was a result of risk management experts making recommendations on increasing safety margins in the event of major quake events and the project being given a sufficient sense of urgency.

The hand-picked team of experts investigating various aspects of the 9/11 attacks and the multiple failures that took place that day concluded that a proper investigation was called for as they were unable to perform that duty adequately due to a number of elements preventing them from accomplishing that task successfully. Many surviving family members of victims have called for a proper investigation. Members of various professional groups have come forward at potential risk of their careers and reputations to call for a proper investigation.

I was unable to attend this CFI-West event—

Ronald Hamburger - - Conspiracy or Science: Why Did the Towers Fall?  - - Center for Inquiry West Los Angeles, CA - - Sunday, December 3, 2006 - - 11 a.m.

but this write-up of it is telling -

“SCIENCE, HANDMAIDEN OF INSPIRED TRUTH,” Or, PUTTING NIST IN PERSPECTIVE by Michael Green Dec. 12, 2006 - http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/hamburger.html

Before the talk I approached Mr. Hamburger privately and after ascertaining his willingness to entertain a question, asked him “Was your group given the task of explaining how the Towers collapsed, based on the assumption that the collapse was caused solely by the damage from the impact of the airplanes and the subsequent fire?”  “Yes,” he answered pithily, and conveyed that my audience was at an end.

Now this theory was put forth fairly recently ( New Theory Explains Collapse of World Trade Center’s Twin Towers ) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110921074747.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+sciencedaily+ScienceDaily:+Latest+Science+News

and from what is being described, it appears that if Mr. Hamburger and his team had pursued evidence gained from investigation and followed it where it led without ruling out any area of inquiry ahead of time, they might have been able to provide data that would have pointed to this new theory earlier. That’s not saying this new theory is valid, just that accurate data collection and forensic examination could have done much to either support or reject this new contention.

If the exchange with Ronald Hamburger is accurate, he’s basically admitting that he was only looking for what he was supposed to find, as opposed to looking at evidence objectively. This is the sort of “expert” CFI brought to address the issue of 9/11 skepticism.

So the official 9/11 Commission recommendation is unimportant to you, and the flaws and shortcomings revealed of a lead investigator should be cause for concern, or at least cause for support of a more thorough examination of the data…but instead we get handwaving.

Experts have looked into this and there is no mystery. No need to actually “do the math.”

I think it was National Geographic that re-ran their 9/11 examination on the 10th anniversary. They talked about the shock and horror of the attacks, and the traumatic visuals of the collapses, and the massive effort in victim retrieval and identification. They then segued from the meticulous victim ID task, and said (rough quote), “It was this attention to detail that allowed the investigators to determine the cause of the collapses.”

So up front they went from detailing the painstaking process of the identification of remains, and implied that the same level of detail was involved in the examination of the building failures, and concluded that they had identified the causes. They made a definitive statement as to the cause of collapse for both WTC towers. That’s the meme they planted from the get go.

The expert that came afterward however, qualified pretty much every one of his statements. “We think what occurred…”, “I think what probably happened…”, “It’s possible that…” and so on to the point that his offerings bore no resemblance to the certainty expressed at the introduction of the segment.

That’s when I turned it off.

CFI and skeptics can critique erroneous conclusions based on false premises by religionists and paranormalists, but let supposed rational voices obscure physical evidence in a similar manner, and the only sound you hear is the crickets chirping.

If it’s so self-evident you can make a model to demonstrate the principles in evidence, you can foster credible debate on the subject, you can follow wherever the data actually leads rather than where you’re convinced it must. Anything short of that means you have no more integrity or credibility than those you ridicule.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2011 03:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
dougsmith - 27 September 2011 02:03 PM

psik, you keep talking about physics while not discussing the fact that you were challenged a couple of times at least on this website by physicists and engineers who demonstrated that you had your facts completely wrong. You had nothing to say to them of any consequence. FWIW I’m staying out of this because it’s been discussed to death, all the competent engineers have weighed in years ago, and the rest is just people trying to make names for themselves, as with UFOs or Bigfoot. The only difference is that in this case it’s also in extremely poor taste.

Oh really?

LINKS?

I got this from you for talking about the square cube law.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/128618/

So don’t expect me to be too impressed by what you call a challenge.

Did these engineers say that the distribution of steel and concrete down the towers were unimportant to analyzing the problem?

The NIST admitted it was important to analyzing the impacts and then they didn’t do it.

Because if those engineers say it is important then why don’t they insist on knowing it.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2011 03:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
psikeyhackr - 27 September 2011 03:42 PM

I got this from you for talking about the square cube law.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/128618/

The link you cite was for hijacking a thread, which is something you do quite a lot. You have two pet issues, which you bring into a very high percentage of the threads to which you respond. While we do try to be very liberal in allowing threads to wander, there are limits.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2011 04:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15
psikeyhackr - 27 September 2011 01:14 PM
LanceThruster - 27 September 2011 11:28 AM

If CFI truly saw the value of science education, they’d be running a yearly 9/11 competition where the goal was to fabricate models meant to replicate the destruction patterns observed.

I am going to have to stop eating while I read your posts.

I nearly choked trying to swallow and laugh at the same time.

Darwin is more important than Newton because it is easier to use him to beat on religion.  Newtonian physics is for intellectual plebeians.

psik

Years ago, I was called for a survey by producers of a TV show meant to mine some of that Mythbusters gold. They asked what sort of stories would I like them to do. I said I’d like to see *attempts* at having the collapses replicated. I sad have them try it without predeterminig the results. Do it as if it were special effects for a movie and report on what it took to get their model to react in the same manner. I used the example of that jumbo jet flown by remote into stakes that were meant to shear jet wings filled with fuel in order to test an anti-mistig additive. It was a spectacular failure due to the angle of the impact, but was exciting nonetheless. IIRC, there was no second attempt.

9/11 recreations have the same potential to educate and enlighten, particularly since many have already made their conclusion as to what could be demonstrated. There seems to me to be no downside in demonstrating what so many are so certain such modeling would show.

It seems about as cut and dried as pushing a basketball underwater in a pool to demonstrate the properties in play with a helium balloon released in the atmosphere. If it’s good enough for Mr. Wizard, it should be good enough for skeptics.

Instead, we get more bleating. Move along, nothing to see here.

It’s like that LDS quote that says when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done and the matter is settled.

Too many godd4m 9/11 prophets for my taste.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2011 04:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
LanceThruster - 27 September 2011 03:37 PM

So up front they went from detailing the painstaking process of the identification of remains, and implied that the same level of detail was involved in the examination of the building failures, and concluded that they had identified the causes. They made a definitive statement as to the cause of collapse for both WTC towers. That’s the meme they planted from the get go.

The expert that came afterward however, qualified pretty much every one of his statements. “We think what occurred…”, “I think what probably happened…”, “It’s possible that…” and so on to the point that his offerings bore no resemblance to the certainty expressed at the introduction of the segment.

CFI and skeptics can critique erroneous conclusions based on false premises by religionists and paranormalists, but let supposed rational voices obscure physical evidence in a similar manner, and the only sound you hear is the crickets chirping.

If it’s so self-evident you can make a model to demonstrate the principles in evidence, you can foster credible debate on the subject, you can follow wherever the data actually leads rather than where you’re convinced it must. Anything short of that means you have no more integrity or credibility than those you ridicule.

Give me a break. The experts have gone over this a million times, and the reason nobody takes this nonsense seriously is that it’s bloody obvious what happened. Of course, any careful scientist will couch their conclusions in strong hypotheticals. But there is no question as to the general sequence of events.

As far as skeptics go, both Skeptic magazine and Skeptical Inquirer have run cover stories on this issue going through the evidence in detail, as well as numerous followup articles.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2011 05:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

Give ME a break.

The *experts* tasked to investigate the attacks concluded they were lied to repeatedly and called for further investigation.

You accept the official theory but reject the call for further investigation by those who crafted the official theory.

How deluded does one have to be to see no problem there?

There’s something that wasn’t gone over a million times, but once, and declared a sham by the participants. I have more respect for Max Cleland who quit the commission in 2003 rather than be a party to administration cover-up.

You apparently feel no one is lying about the physics involved in the collapses but are not concerned about other areas where deception and obstruction have been established beyond question? (as in John Farmer’s book about the 9/11 Commission report).

Why shoud anyone care what you say ISN’T an issue when you have no concern about what the principle investigators said SHOULD be an issue?

What sort of assinine ‘logic” is that?

More handwaving.

I’ll look at what both publications had to say, but I remember a Michael Shermer debunking of Holocaust denial. It’s not that I doubt the Holocaust took place, but that Shermer’s arguments in support of the Holocaust narrative and rejection of opposing arguments was about as weak as I could imagine. He used the same logical fallacies someone defending garden fairy photos would use. I was wholly unimpressed.

And again, it’s not about defending or rejecting the Holocaust narrative (something that 9/11 skeptics are tarred with because of clues indicating Israeli duplicity), it’s examining what a piss-poor job Shermer does debunking revisionism - link http://www.codoh.com/revisionist/review/tr09denyhist.html )

He called 9/11 truthers a pack of liars but it’s easy to cherry pick the least credible theories whie ignoring truthers that just want a proper investigation. Penn & Tell did the same thing with their Bullshit! episode (couldn’t even make the whole show on 9/11) and had their 9/11 guy saying aliens did it. Nice disinfo there. Alien guy and AE for truth no different. How totally dishonest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/911-truthers-a-pack-of-li_b_84154.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2011 05:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

And if the 10th anniversary of 9/11 is not a time to revisit the tragedy, when is? A little reflection by US citizens might have spared a few thousand (if not more) innocent Iraqis and Afghans the misery we subjected them to based on payback by an administration peddling lies from the beginning. What dots are you willing and not willing to connect?

Why is your skepticism so shamefully selective?

Liars are lying about some things, but not all, and you possess some sort of remarkable capicity to differentiate between the lies to arrive at truth.

It’s like the line from “Inherit the Wind” - “God tells Brady, and Brady tells the world.” And Spencer Tracy goes on about those who woud dare to have a non-Brady thought.

Feh!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2011 06:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05

It is funny how people worship the word skeptic as if that automatically means intelligent but then can’t figure out what to be skeptical about.

Two airliners less than 200 tons each with 34 tons of kerosene, sometimes known as jet fuel, totally obliterate two nearly identical skyscrapers in 1 hour and two hours respectively and people don’t insist on having accurate information on the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings even though they stood for 28 years and one already survived a large bomb.

And the second building had the top break loose and tilt 22 degrees in a couple of seconds with the bottom moving horizontally 20 feet when the impact of the plane only moved the building 15 inches and made it oscillate for 4 minutes.

The problem after TEN YEARS is that for the physics profession to admit that airliners could not have done it they would have to admit that they had their heads up their asses for that long.  Too many people would have to admit they were st—-d.  But physics does not change and this cannot go away.  They can just try to browbeat people into keeping quiet.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 51
3