Because your data is bullshit and can’t be rationalized.
Link to the blueprints then.
60% of the total mass does not mean it’s a solid wall. I linked to a photo that clearly showed the sun shining through the towers. The airliners encountered mainly glass.
197 tons to 500,000 tons. You don’t phrase things clearly.
Earlier, I posed a theory that the towers are still there but cloaked. No response.
I say the towers were never there in the first place. Cleans up a lot of the problems nicely.
And we are saying your data is wrong, or being interpreted in incorrect ways (or ways that do not apply to the situation at hand).
Why do you think you know better than the hundreds of thousands of scientists across the world that possess equal or greater knowledge of physics than you?
He won’t even consider that the other 27 people who posted in this thread may be right and he may be wrong.
I think that airplanes are a fraud. I mean, has anyone ever actually seen an airplane outside of television?
Of course. Planes are too large to fit inside of a television.
I had one of those balsa ones with the rubber band. I don’t think it could do any damage to a skyscraper, though.
I heated it up to see how it would do against butter and it just charred.
They told me the magic tube that took me to Vegas that one time was an airplane, but I’m pretty sure there’s no such place as Vegas.
Fact is, cores of both Towers could be seen standing for several seconds before dropping.
If they “drop[ped] straight down”, care to explain why a significant portion of Two’s core was ejected south and crushed the Greek Orthodox Church across the street?
Do you know that several members of International Skeptics (back when they were part of JREF) successfully joined AE911Truth with fictitious names and credentials?
Could you do me a favor and describe how you think a commercial jet airliner hitting a skyscraper built like the WTC towers should look, and what evidence you’re basing that on? You seem to find what we saw unlikely/improbable. What would you expect to see, and what are you basing that on?
New York City is a myth.
I’ve been there a bunch of times, but it’s still a myth.
What specifically would it take to convince you that your assumptions are wrong, and that this disaster happened just the way it was reported? What sources could we use that you would find acceptable?
For somebody who says he wants to argue this based on the laws of physics, and additionally keeps saying the math is simple, I see a decided lack of arguments based on actual physical laws or mathematics.
The formulae for penetrative power of a moving object, the penetrative resistance of a reinforced concrete wall, etc. are all well-known. I’ll be more impressed Jay_Jay when I see some actual math. If you’re going to say that something is physically impossible, prove it.
And no, I won’t accept links to a 9/11 Truther website. They don’t have sufficient credibility. Present the formula yourself, with an explanation on where you get the values for any variables (i.e. sources), and maybe you’ll have something compelling. Until then, it is just blah blah blah.
Speaking of fomulae, who was he guy who kept insisting that the ongoing secrecy of how much concrete was used in making the floors of the WTC buildings suggested a cover-up? I think I asked him once what he would do with this data, if he had a spreadsheet standing by waiting for the input such that if it was, say, 900 tons per floor, would that prove something or disprove something?
The problem with people like the OP is that they think they’re defense attorneys - they think that all they have to do is poke enough holes in the prosecution’s theory to create reasonable doubt. Besides the fact that they can’t even do that, they don’t realize that they have to actually present an alternate theory of their own.
Heck, I think I just joined AE911Truth. I mean I just clicked the box that said “I am an architect or engineer” and made up a bunch of stuff. Then I gave a throw away email that I used to confirm.
We’ll see. I probably should have taken more time in crafting my statement on the collapse which reads.
It was a bad thing. It did not happen like they said.
But I’m SURE I could sign up a bunch of times if I wanted. Because I know lots of real architects and engineers. Some who I don’t like. Their license numbers are readily available. Throwaway email addresses are easy to generate.
And Jay Jay, I think you might be my friend Anthony. Anthony, if that’s you - turn off the computer and get some sleep. We’ve talked about this, it’s not healthy.
Jay_Jay, do you believe the 1945 plane crash into the Empire State building was also faked? If not then why was it possible for a B-25 Mitchell bomber to penetrate the Empire State Building, including one engine going right through and out the other side, but not for a Boeing 767 to penetrate the WTC tower?
But the Empire State building is still standing. Explain that.