The Drones Are Here

[RkFast]

No, I just understand the science behind demolition engineering. You, apparently, do not.

 

 

I believe he did, yes. The forensic science bears it out. He got off because the forensic science also bore out evidence tampering.

 

 

The hard physics behind freefall velocity vs.structural resistance is an uninformed "opinion", but the fiat declaration that airplanes vaporize when they crash, despite the anti-science absurdity of that claim, must go unchallenged?

 

What !@#$ing planet is this?

 

So you can quote "physics" to support your point, but you leave out the "physics" of an 80 ton object hitting each building at over 300 knots.

 

Interesting.

[TakeYouToTasker]

So you can quote "physics" to support your point, but you leave out the "physics" of an 80 ton object hitting each building at over 300 knots.

 

Interesting.

Not at all.

 

It would serve you well to stop arguing emotionally, and strawmaning my position, which is simply: I haven't been given enough information to know what happened or who perpatrated the attacks.

 

You may have been given enough to satisfy your own curiosity, but I have not.

[TakeYouToTasker]

There was nothing "controled" about the collapse of the buildings you moron.

 

Ten floors of a building are going to flip over from the point of failure (which is clearly seen on the video) rather than just falling straight down once they are no longer supported?? Good grief, I didn't realize suspension of the laws of gravity were a further requirement for nutty 9-11 conspiracy theories.

You've obviously not payed any attention to the revisions made to the government's official report, who's "pancake theory" requires a velocity reduced from freefall by 40%, which is the figure they released. After private studies nearly unanimously determined that the buildings did, in fact, fall at freefall velocity, the government quietly revised thier report to reflect exactly that. They did not, however, revise their pancake theory which required that 40% differential in order to be scientifically sound.

[RkFast]

Not at all.

 

It would serve you well to stop arguing emotionally, and strawmaning my position, which is simply: I haven't been given enough information to know what happened or who perpatrated the attacks.

 

You may have been given enough to satisfy your own curiosity, but I have not.

 

With all the info thats come out, from the eyewitness accounts of MILLIONS all the way down the line, thats not good enough for you.

 

Yeah, youre a real !@#$ing cynic.

 

!@#$ing !@#$.....

 

I say this with all sincerity...next time one of these things happen, I hope youre on the flight for a first row seat....you and the rest of your c-sucking piece of **** "cynic" friends.

 

And if I get a posting vacation for writing this, it was worth it...just so I can tell a piece of garbage like yourself to go to hell.

Edited February 3, 2013 by RkFast

[TakeYouToTasker]

Yet you suspect 9/11 was what? "Arranged?" "facilitated" By whom? Who gained from placing explosives in the world trade towers? Bush? Al qaeda? Who?

Let's get this out of the way right off the bat: I would be stunned to find that the Bush administration had anything at all to do with the attacks. Absolutely stunned. I think that's among the least likely senarios, roughly on par with, "wizards did it".

 

As to who would benefit? That is not a short list.

 

With all the info thats come out, from the eyewitness accounts of MILLIONS all the way down the line, thats not good enough for you.

 

Yeah, youre a real !@#$ing cynic.

 

!@#$ing !@#$.....

 

I say this with all sincerity...next time one of these things happen, I hope youre on the flight for a first row seat....you and the rest of your c-sucking piece of **** "cynic" friends.

 

And if I get a posting vacation for writing this, it was worth it...just so I can tell a piece of garbage like yourself to go to hell.

 

Quoted for posterity.

[Oxrock]

F. u. c. k. it. You believe what you want. I'm just surprised.

[Joe Miner]

No, I just understand the science behind demolition engineering. You, apparently, do not.

 

 

Bold statement.

 

Where did you study this?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Bold statement.

 

Where did you study this?

College. I've always been a numbers guy, and studied industrial engineering before changing my major to economics.

[Joe Miner]

College. I've always been a numbers guy, and studied industrial engineering before changing my major to economics.

 

Just curious. In internet land, everyone is an expert on everything.

 

I disagree that there was more to it than a plane hitting a building, but I readily admit I'm neither a civil engineer nor an explosives/demolition expert.

 

One thing I do know is that there can be lots of predictions about what should happen in a plane versus 100 story building scenario. But often times there are variables that can't exactly be accounted for until after the fact. I also doubt there are a lot of case studies to examine for this type of thing.

[RkFast]

I've always been a numbers guy, and studied industrial engineering before changing my major to economics.

 

!@#$ing around with Legos before you go out and get a paper route is hardly "studying."

Edited February 4, 2013 by RkFast

[KD in CA]

Just curious. In internet land, everyone is an expert on everything.

 

I disagree that there was more to it than a plane hitting a building, but I readily admit I'm neither a civil engineer nor an explosives/demolition expert.

 

One thing I do know is that there can be lots of predictions about what should happen in a plane versus 100 story building scenario. But often times there are variables that can't exactly be accounted for until after the fact. I also doubt there are a lot of case studies to examine for this type of thing.

 

That's my favorite part. The 'truthers' talking about what "should" happen to 100 story buildings after they are rammed by a commercial airplane.

 

 

My conclusion is that some people just need to invent crazy senarios in their head to get through the day. The reality that a handful of not-that-bright dudes with razor blades could inflict that kind of damage is just too much for some folks to process. It's easier to believe there's an evil genius behind it all.

Edited February 4, 2013 by KD in CT

[TakeYouToTasker]

!@#$ing around with Legos before you go out and get a paper route is hardly "studying."

Listen man, don't blame your terrible work ethic, dead end job, and bottom third IQ on me. It's not my fault that you don't understand how applied mathematics work in our physical universe.

 

Though it goes a long way towards helping me understand why you might wish physical harm, and even death, on myself, my friends, and my family over a disagreement about individual requirements before accepting proof of truth.

 

That, and you're an incredibly small man. Incredibly small.

 

That's my favorite part. The 'truthers' talking about what "should" happen to 100 story buildings after they are rammed by a commercial airplane.

 

 

My conclusion is that some people just need to invent crazy senarios in their head to get through the day. The reality that a handful of not-that-bright dudes with razor blades could inflict that kind of damage is just too much for some folks to process. It's easier to believe there's an evil genius behind it all.

Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the suspension of physics. Neither terrible human tragedy, nor airplane crashes smite the forces of physical reistance on gravity. Sorry you find that so difficult to understand. I truely am.

Edited February 4, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[Magox]

Oh lord, another truther?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Oh lord, another truther?

When you examine, and understand the math, and it doesn't add up, not even close, it's wrong to question the theory of applied physics being used if the subject incorporates strong emotional responses?

[Magox]

Okey dokey

[TakeYouToTasker]

OK...

 

I'll go slow...

 

Does everyone here know how the conservation of energy works? (If not, !@#$ing execute yourself, because you're wasting perfectly good air that the rest of us could be breathing.)

 

Freefall can only be achieved when a falling object has no structural components beneath it. There is only one way for a building to have no structural components beneath it, and that is to physically remove those lower structural components with an external force. If this doesn't happen, the upper part of a building must resort to crushing its lower structural components in it's decent. By crushing them itself, in it's decent, a portion of it's energy will be spend on crushing, and cannot, therefore, be spent on motion. Given this, the "pancake theory" cannot possibly allow for freefall velocity.

[B-Man]

Go as slow as you want.

 

 

Torture whatever equation or principle you want.

 

 

Go off on any tangent you want.

 

 

The towers were brought down by two jets crashing into them.

 

 

and two other hijacked jets crashed in DC and PA.

 

 

There is no mystery, there is only those who want desperately for more..............where none exists.

 

 

.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Go as slow as you want.

 

 

Torture whatever equation or principle you want.

 

 

Go off on any tangent you want.

 

 

The towers were brought down by two jets crashing into them.

 

 

and two other hijacked jets crashed in DC and PA.

 

 

There is no mystery, there is only those who want desperately for more..............where none exists.

 

 

.

I'm growing tired of your religion.

 

Explain how freefall velocity can be achieved without the absence of lower structural supports.

 

Then publish, because you'll have revolutionzed science at the level of Einstien, Copernicus, and Tesla.

Edited February 5, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[boyst]

I'm not saying you are wrong about it being terrible either way, but I think that it would have made a difference to those servicemen and women who died in Afghanistan for one thing. It would also make a difference as to who we need to fight. It sure would make a difference in this 2nd ammendment debate.

I agree about the soldiers who died, it is terrible. Regardless, they're gone, and the only difference it'd have made to them is that if the "truth" comes out now, who's going to tell it? This modern day 2nd ammendment crap is just that, crap. They'll ban 16 clip magazines this decade. Ban 12 clip magazines next decade. By 2030 we'll have 4 load clips...but that's okay, we'll all have phazers!

 

I believe the southern name is War of Northern Aggression.

Glad someone pays attention in history class...

btw, where are all those people who said that states shouldn't have rights back then?

 

What ever grandpa says. Good thing he's a Democrat, he skipped the part about FDR having advance knowledge about Pearl harbor and ignoring it so we would go to war.

My grandpa knew there was no way to stop a thief. They were going to steal it whether it was chained or locked. An honest man only stops at a locked door. Yet, he slept with a loaded double barrel shotgun next to his bed. A golf club by the door. A 22" hammer under his truck seat. And attempted to by a pistol, when he got older.

[DC Tom]

OK...

 

I'll go slow...

 

Does everyone here know how the conservation of energy works? (If not, !@#$ing execute yourself, because you're wasting perfectly good air that the rest of us could be breathing.)

 

Freefall can only be achieved when a falling object has no structural components beneath it. There is only one way for a building to have no structural components beneath it, and that is to physically remove those lower structural components with an external force. If this doesn't happen, the upper part of a building must resort to crushing its lower structural components in it's decent. By crushing them itself, in it's decent, a portion of it's energy will be spend on crushing, and cannot, therefore, be spent on motion. Given this, the "pancake theory" cannot possibly allow for freefall velocity.

 

"Conservation of energy?" Right there, you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the subject.