That paper was from before 9/11 and does not contain the word strength. Was the strength of the columns in the south tower impact zone the same as the strength in the north tower impact zone. Wouldn't the amount of steel have something to do with that? psik
I think they still claim a 757 performed the magic. Maybe the footage (the proof) is on one of those 83 cameras that the SS confiscated in the first 15 minutes after the 'attack'.
Great post, there are some other simulations out there somewhere how the aircraft interacted with the interior. I see the truthers, a couple that have proven they can't even understand simple things, are out in force. - - - Updated - - - Koko only has either bad gifs or gifs made up by a cartoonist with no math or science behind it. That is all you will get from Koko.
There you go with your strawman. I know what I saw, other eyewitnesses know what they saw and its documented...as well as, the debris of the planes, body parts, RADAR, phone calls, ATC.... NONE of this has anything to do with the media. "asymmetrical damage...herp der...." Another one of you bogus, ass hat claims. The buildings didnt crumble and crush thenselves....the were subjected to fully fueled projectiles that cause significant damages upon impact and then were left to burn until they could no longer support the load. Stop trying to sound as if you actuallly knwo what you're posting about, you dont. First, prove it. I CHALLENG YOU. Show me the math that says that plane couldn't have flown (descended and crashed) at that speed. PUT UP, OR SHUT UP.
Starting in with your claim again after being shown the specs and numbers and given the design requirements? Dang you are dense and I mean that in a sad way. That is not a put down, that is just an observation. Either you go back and educate yourself or continue to look like a know nothing. It is beyond ridiculous that you keep spouting the same nonsense after you have been schooled but I guess you would need to know how to add and multiply. Not sure that is even within your grasp. I take that back, maybe you are just trolling for fun. Because to believe otherwise...
Did YOU personally see aircraft parts, body parts ( etc.... ) or did you see the reporting on TV? ( back to the media again ) Fact is, our politicians + the media were the first to assert that hijacked airliners were used as weapons, and so far they have NOT supported this assertion with anything.
I for one have asked to to post your documentation or your video of what you claim to have seen. So post it. PU or (*)(*)(*)(*) Lets see your math on the building that it could no longer support the load.
Then what are those graphs for? the ones that show speeds at different altitudes? and indicate that max speed at low altitude is 360 knots and therefore if max speed is 360 knots, or aprox 415 mph, then 590 mph is far in excess of >100 mph over max, how do you account for that?
Sigh. First learn about what airspeed is before you continue to make yourself look so foolish. Pulling numbers out of your butt does not help your case.
I don't think actual factual debate is what is wanted. Rather, I think some just want to make a lot of noise but, avoid specifics. If only we could get a back and forth in that direction. That would be something.
I thought that earlier in this discussion you showed me that at <1000 ft airspeed = groundspeed, so its a moot point.
I know i won't an answer from Koko but you can ask, you never know he might start giving answers. I'm not holding my breath though.
Again, please show me where I claimed to have taken a video. What "documentation" would there be? You're statement, as usual, is nonsense. Was everyone in NYC "documented"? The math has been done...by many. Here is just one: http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
well I hate to inform you but your continual yapping away on a forum is not "documentation" nor evidence and I cant imagine why you think it is. what do you think that old bazant paper means. "The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed." BIG "IF" wtc 2 however it is impossible to have the majority of columns of a SINGLE floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the tower is doomed. Now if you think that was the case feel free to show us which columns were in this majorityand which SINGLE floor they were on
DODGE! Now if you think that was the case feel free to show us which columns were in this majorityand which SINGLE floor they were on
Oh, I see...you have another cause you would like to make up and insert? Lazers? Magic?..Cause, you have to back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The only know event in evidence was fire due to plane crash. Prove something different...I know you can't
Seems to me the fire (aka HEAT) was somewhere towards the top of the buildings. I must admit, I didn't realize that the whole thing had gotten to a shaky bowl of hot wax in an hour.
still DODGING! I took the requirements for failure right out of bazants paper that YOU posted! Now if you think that was the case feel free to show us which columns were in this majority and which SINGLE floor they were on. but debunkers have no evidence that the alleged plane did anything beyond crashing into the building, and no evidence that there was enough fire to weaken even one column. If you dont understand what you are posting dont post it. lets see your evidence.
