again, you guys make it up as you go, just saying random things without actually saying anything scientific, factual, or evidence-based. as far as nist's 911 report goes, have you actually read it? even if you havent read it word for word, are you at all familiar with it? it stops at the point of "initiation of collapse," that is to say, it does not investigate or even try to offer any explanations for the actual destruction of the buildings. it focuses solely on the events leading up to the "initiation of collapse," whereas the series of events in question is the actual collapses themselves. furthermore, the data they used to build their computer models of these events they refuse to make available for peer review. people even tried to submit FOIA requests for their data and were denied on the grounds of "national security." i would remind you that science is not something done by authority figures in secret behind closed doors. science is done in the open and made available for peer review. that part is not optional, else it is not science. when it is kept secret, the "conclusion" is told to you by authority figures, and you are shamed into toeing the line and not asking questions else you get smeared as unpatriotic and/or a crazy person, there are terms for what that is, and science is most assuredly not one of them.
as far as the "pancake collapse" or "house of cards" sort of theories go, again, when you apply just a little bit of critical thought and real physical principles here, it becomes immediately obvious that these theories cannot possibly be applied to the way those three buildings were actually destroyed. when a house of 110 cards collapses, you are left with a pile of 110 cards. the cards do not - cannot in fact pulverize themselves into a pile of dust. same with the pancake theory of one floor dislodging the next in a domino effect of cascading pancakes. you would be left with a whole lot of pancakes. there would be some destruction sure, but there would not and could not be such a complete pulverization of all the material involved. in order for that to happen, in order for what actually happened to happen, there would have to be far more energy involved in that system than what is allowed for in such a system as a pancake or house of cards collapse.
as far as the "pancake collapse" or "house of cards" sort of theories go, again, when you apply just a little bit of critical thought and real physical principles here, it becomes immediately obvious that these theories cannot possibly be applied to the way those three buildings were actually destroyed. when a house of 110 cards collapses, you are left with a pile of 110 cards. the cards do not - cannot in fact pulverize themselves into a pile of dust. same with the pancake theory of one floor dislodging the next in a domino effect of cascading pancakes. you would be left with a whole lot of pancakes. there would be some destruction sure, but there would not and could not be such a complete pulverization of all the material involved. in order for that to happen, in order for what actually happened to happen, there would have to be far more energy involved in that system than what is allowed for in such a system as a pancake or house of cards collapse.
Comment