Explain why it’s impossible when you’ve seen it done. Why do you need experiments when it’s happened twice?
Why do you not believe what you saw?
Why would you believe a scale model when the full size event didn’t convince you?
And a scale model would not have the same ratios of material strength and mass as full size.
As far as the bridge, you can measure the aerodynamic forces on a model because they’re similar despite the size difference.
I fell into this trap before. I’ll say I don’t know what happened. I know what I think happened, but that is most likely wrong. A real investigation could hash out the facts.
It doesn’t really matter though, I don’t need to provide an alternate theory to prove that the official story is a lie.
Since you didn’t label these, what do the numbers represent?
[QUOTE=split p&j]
A real investigation could hash out the facts.
[/QUOTE]
Like the ones already done that you don’t believe because you don’t believe them?
True enough, if you COULD prove the ‘official story is a lie’. But you haven’t done so except to yourself and the other faithful. Basically, what you and others of like mind are relegated to doing is trying to pick apart small aspects of the ‘official story’ (mostly using your own ignorance to do so), then string them together into a connect the dots rorschach collage that only looks like a picture to folks already drinking the kool-aide.
And this is really the most interesting thing you’ve said. It goes with a lot of stuff I’ve read on the minds of CTers of any stripe, including the 9/11 Truther crowd. You (and they) are just not capable of accepting that random things happen, so you need to create a narrative in your own mind(s) where patterns exist and pieces come together. No matter if the conclusions are scary or insane, it actually provides folks like you with some level of comfort that there really is order in a chaotic world.
psikey, how did you get cubic yards from a square measurement?
But how do YOU know what happened twice?
Were both buildings subjected to demolition? But why didn’t the tilted top portion of the south tower fall down the side and yet the center of mass is not even be discussed for 12 years? That does not apply to the north tower.
You must ignore a lot to say the same thing happened to both buildings. They were both hit by aircraft and both destroyed. But there is a lot of variation within that broad generalization. Like firemen getting to the 78th floor of the south tower and talking about to isolated pockets of fire that could be knocked down by two lines and then suddenly the building goes.
But then we have had plenty of skyscraper fires before and since 9/11 and no collapses. Yeah we know they were not hit by aircraft, but fires have been a lot bigger and longer lasting.
Did any professionals get to the north tower fire to report anything?
So I say do experiments to analyse the north tower since that had a smaller portion supposedly destroying a much larger portion. Why should anyone with a “scientific” perspective on the issue object no matter what the truth is.
Is this like the movies, “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH”? 
psik
I can accept that random things happen. Random events that help an agenda spelled out 4 years in advance call for a closer look IMHO.
Jesus!!!
You can’t figure out what the volume of the basements had to be? The buildings were 208 feet by 208 feet. The basement went about 70 feet into the ground. Then you must divide by 27 for the number of cubic feet in a cubic yard.
But that does not take into account how much of the basements were actually empty space or steel. So that cannot all be concrete. So if the pre-9/11 data of 425,000 cubic yards of concrete is correct then its location within the towers has not been reported since 9/11.
So the 9/11 Affair is totally bullsh!t science.
But I keep forgetting. This site is supposed to be fighting IGNORANCE.
psik
It appears to mostly be falling into your posts.
Notice how everyone else is against you.
If 911 took place in a vacuum XT, you might have a point about the random events. Since you seem to make your self out to be an expert on how people think, let me pose this hypothetical question.
Lets say I have a neighbor that I don’t like, and I tell all my other neighbors that I’d like to see him die in a car crash. I keep saying that for a few years.
A few years later, he dies in a car crash caused by what looks like a failed brake line. Would the detectives be “insane” in thinking that I was possibly responsible and questioning me? Or would it just be chalked up as a random event?
So you’re saying that the full volume of concrete would not have fit in the basement?
That’s your proof that the amount of concrete is wrong?
If they have a video taped confession of some other guy saying he did it, and his finger prints are all over the brake line, and incidentally, it’s demonstrably impossible for you to have tampered with the brakes, then yeah, that’s pretty crazy.
The video,which “Bin Laden” was in them? You’re joking right?
Nonsense. The allegations of fakery in this are merely an artifact of video compression methods. This has been covered a long time ago:
And none of the other guys in the room ever mentioned the imposter in their midsts.
Here’s the actual video, for comparison’s sake.
Actually, those guys are also imposters.
In fact, the entire population of the Middle East is nothing but Hollywood extras.
Yes there were isolated pockets of fire on 78, that was from well for lack of a better term, splash over from the 10,000 gallons of jet fuel that was sprayed all over the building a few floors up. Orio Palmer the fire fighter that made that broadcast was below the main fire by one or more floors.
You or course know that no other building built like the WTC has had a large fire either before or since. And since you know that, you are the one spreading bullshit ideas, and you are the one that can’t handle the truth.
You mean the airplane that the pilot steered into the building? That sort of something caused by someone?
Anyway, we’re entering the crazy zone. Y’all have fun.
