Yes yes, my cites are dubious but yours are above reproach of course.
Leaving out the heat, what’s the primary cause of pyroclastic flows? Collapsing rock. Such as 110-floors of drywall & concrete falling to Earth.
I’m not “baiting” you. It is literally my favorite of the theories that have been put forward on the matter. There’s also the “the planes were actually missiles projecting holograms” one, but I’m not convinced that guy actually believed that one. But you say you’ve got a science-based argument. Bring it.
Well, no, they’re not. But that’s the point. The data is out there for people to review.
And overwhelmingly, the civil engineers who have reviewed the data agree with the government findings while the people who still have their doubts, even the ones with STEM degrees or specialties, are overwhelmingly not civil engineers.
Experts, like the ASCE, have signed off on the official findings. These are professionals who do civil engineering for a living. And that’s not exactly a monolithic group but a professional society with independent members.
In this thread you haven’t given any cites. However, in previous threads all you managed to do was invoke AE911T, to which the term ‘dubious’ would be an extraordinary kindness.
Our cites certainly can be criticized. And in some cases they have been (note that NIST was publicly reviewed by the world’s engineering community, a process much harsher than paper peer review.).
I’m a layman, but we can do amazing things now. Like analyze a video and get feet per second of a moving object. I personally don’t know anything, but we know how objects in Earth’s gravity well behave according to physics
These are know facts, laws of nature.
How do you explain the buildings collapse approaching terminal velocity?
Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful response.
I see what you are saying. I maintain my skepticism because I still believe the lower floors should have slowed the cascading collapse to a greater extent than what we saw. I also believe a floor collapse must have been a scenario factored into the engineering of the buildings. Perhaps someone can cite whether that’s true or not.
Beyond that, in order for your scenario to work, there had to be a uniform collapse on all of the lower floors. As I see it, at least one section would hold out slightly longer than the others. Let’s say the NW section of the 94th floor held out slightly longer than the other sections of the floor. In the ensuing collapse to the 93rd floor, the NW section would hold out even longer and downward forces would vary as rubble would assuredly be uneven due the chaotic nature of the situation. The same would happen on the 92nd floor and so forth until the collapse lost its uniformity.
The cores did.
Once the roof was gone, so was much of the stability.
You haven’t given any. In fact, you haven’t given anything at all. You haven’t said how science disproves ‘The Official Story(tm…arr)’, or anything else. You made some vague claims and that’s about it.
Why?
No really, why? Please show the math involved that would indicate a required slowdown. Or reference someone who has.
Your faith in this slowdown is essentially being surprised that a bicycle on the railroad tracks did not stop or even slow the speeding locomotive.
In all the threads you have participated in on this subject how do you explain your inability to accept answers given over and over and over again?
Have you ever given us a cite from a peer-reviewed journal?
By saying it didn’t, and that this claim has been debunked. 9/11 Truthers CLAIMED this, but as with everything else, their claim is false. Getting them to admit it, however, has gone as well as getting them to admit the other myriad errors or intentional deceptions they have perpetrated.
Don’t believe me? It’s really, really easy to prove this one. Watch one of the towers fall. See the debris that is falling away from the tower going down? The large pieces falling around the tower but not in the central area? Notice anything strange? You would if you watched it. You would notice that those pieces are falling faster than the main collapse. Know why? Because those pieces ARE in free fall. And they are not falling at the same speed as the tower is collapsing. This is so easy to debunk, yet you guys are STILL using it despite that. And this is just one of myriad deceptions and lies that the Truthers tell.
So if it was a tube that the floors just slid down the tube should have been standing right?
Who made that claim?
In several videos you can see that the lower part of the central tube was left standing for a brief moment. But it wasn’t meant to stand free and came down very shortly thereafter.
BTW, this is not a cite, this is random nitpicking.
A few post above says it was just a tube with sticks
So you guys are saying the sticks attached to the tube wouldn’t pull the tube down as well
This is not a cite. This is nitpicking.
If you want to know why 911 truthers are laughed at on this board, just take a look at this level of gameplaying. Earlier split was complaining that his nobly and honestly given cites were rejected cruelly, but a few posts later he is playing the standard truther games.