Not unless you have even a mild sense of the temperatures and forces involved in such an impact. It's way beyond what most people are used to thinking in terms of.
News clips from 9-11-2001 **You can't debunk this**
- Thread starter Ganymede
- Start date
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Far less than any pancake theory could possibly explain.
Even if such possibilities existed...which they dont.
Of course, this theory still doesn't explain why they'd plant bombs in the buildings. The suicide hijackings were provocative enough, whether or not the buildings collapsed, so there's no need to undertake the essentially impossible task of secretly wiring the towers for demolition.
Then don't present your intuitions as if they represent reliable guides to the physics of skyscraper calamities. Unless you've got a PhD in structural engineering and at least a decade of experience in design/construction/demolition of skyscrapers, your expectations about what should and should not occur in a situation such as 9/11 are worth exactly dick.
This gets to the root of the problem with the "Truth" movement (and the Loose Change video in particular): they use a crude form of populist rhetoric to subvert people's natural (and justified) faith in scientific and technical authorities. They'd have you believe that all it takes to understand the physics of an unprecedented structural catastrophe is a little common sense, a few minutes of selective video footage, and a handful of general facts about materials and physics. This, of course, is ridiculous. If there's ever been a issue that required more in the way of expertise to penetrate, I can't think of it. However, nobody likes to be told "you're not educated enough to figure this out on your own, just trust us," and so the "Truth" movement continues to appeal to a certain segment of the population that possesses both an unhealthy distrust of authority and an overdeveloped estimate of their own judgement.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
And I'm sick and tired of people like you for mistating the facts. Here's the list of Scientists and retired Military personal who conclude that this was an inside job.
Michael M. Andregg
St. Paul, MN, USA
PhD U California Davis
Intelligence Affairs
David Heller
Berkeley, CA, USA
BS: Physics Bard College
MA: S. F. Inst. Archit
Architect and Builder
Steven E. Jones
Provo, Utah, USA
Retired BY Physics Professor
George F. Nelson
Huntsville, AL, USA
FAA A&P Licence
US Airforce Colonel (ret
http://physics911.ca/members/
No it's people like you. Who only use conjecture to back up your points. You never use evidence to back up any of your statements. Your arugment is rooted in Emotion not logic.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Intuitions????
For one, I am a Civil Engineer, soon recieving my Master's at SLU. Secondly, I know EXACTLY how the WTC was constructed down to the last truss. I've done my research.
And last but not least, thank you for making a complete fool of yourself.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
What about building 7? There goes your argument. Game over, TRY AGAIN!
None of those people are experienced, respected experts in the field of skyscraper design, construction or demolition. Unless you get paid actual money to engineer actual skyscrapers, your intuitions aren't worth squat.
By the way, architects don't count. They decide what buildings look like, not how they stand. Structural engineers do that. I have a friend currently attending the same architecture school as David Heller lists, and he can't even do basic freshman calculus, let alone structural engineering. And they won't be teaching him any of that stuff before he graduates.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Please... show me YOUR PhD in structural engineering. None??? Then I believe you should follow your own advice and keep quiet instead of telling everyone else to.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
So now you claim that you ARE an expert. Having an advanced degree in engineering myself (and from a much better school than SLU) I happen to know exactly how little a master's graduate is capable of knowing about any particular subject. Again, unless you actually get paid to work on the structural design of actual high-rises and skyscrapers, I'm not impressed.
Oh, I agree. I was just giving the answer I've heard among conspiracy theorists (such as SAM).
To me, the most obvious reason this could not be an "inside job" is that the Bush administration could not possibly keep that kind of conspiracy a secret. They can't even keep our wiretapping of terror suspects secret!
I'm not the one passing off my impressions of video clips as science, or challenging the opinions of a vast array of respected experts. It doesn't take a PhD in structural engineering to see that you guys aren't qualified to speak as experts on this stuff. This is something that CAN be easily determined by anyone with a little common sense.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Now, im not gonna sit here and play "who has the bigger dick". Just scan your degree and post it. Its that simple. I'll scan mine, no prob. Until then.. Your input on this conversation = 0.
Indeed. Where it really falls apart is when they start to suggest that the entire NIST report is part of the conspiracy.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
And please, tell me what makes YOU qualified.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Furthermore, I am not "passing off my impressions of video clips as science". I was there that day on vacation before I had to go back to school the next week.
Yeah, whatever. My degree isn't relevant to the conversation, as I've never claimed to know more structural engineering than you. Rather, my point is that you know less structural engineering than the people who did the NIST report. It doesn't take a degree to see this.
As far as trying to declare my input void, that's a pretty funny tactic. Do you really think that people who read this thread are going to discount my statements just because you've lost your cool?
You claim to be a student?:bravo:
An i am a brain surgeon, i know everything about the human brain...and i am a movie star too.