So do you believe in it?
There you go again - another question answered with a question =- show me where I said it or admit it's a fabrication.
So do you believe in it?
You really are losing it. The above is likely why. Entrenched position = desperate argument. Are you really trying to convince yourself that nose cones and aluminium sheeting ('skin' as it is known with regard to aircraft) can do all that damage to steels?
The biggest problem with your video is that it started at the end and worked its way backwards. It's not the way to conduct a scientific endeavour. Starting with a result and conclusion and working back over the method until you get the desired result is, categorically, bad science. It's fraud. A 767 is 80% aluminium, a lot of that is in the form of sheets, 2-3mm thick; 14% steel; 6% other, If you watch the video again, at 1 minute to 1 minute 10 seconds it shows the aircraft entering the building by cutting through the steel outer columns with no deformation or visible damage to the nose, wings, tail, engines, fuselage; nothing. The steel outer perimeter is opened up like a sardine tin with no perceptible deceleration of the aircraft, nor damage to the same. Given the length of the aircraft and the depth of the buildings, the nose, wings and fuselage would have come into contact with the central core before the entire aircraft had 'entered' the building - and still no deceleration, crumpling? Do you think that this is possible?
From one minute to one minute ten seconds - the view of the plane is from outside the building. Are you suggesting that the nose broke through the steel columns and then became damaged? As shown in this still. Let's call a spade a spade - it's rubbish.
There you go again - another question answered with a question =- show me where I said it or admit it's a fabrication.
Do you think that this is possible?
It did not decelerate or crumple? If it did not decelerate, then the aircraft would have continued out the other side of the building at the same speed.
There's plenty of crumpling. Plenty of damage. Try going through the video one frame at a time.
I've already explained the the oddness of the visualization comes from the limitation of finite element analysis.
There you go again - another question answered with a question =- show me where I said it or admit it's a fabrication.
It's an assumption based on my recollection of your previous statements
The plane IS damaged exactly as you would expect - a small fraction of a second later it's entirely reduced to shreds.
It's an assumption
No there is not - and that is plain for anyone to see. In the opening of the video, showing the aircraft entering the building from outside, there is no deformation of the aircraft as it slices through the steel outer perimeter. Are you saying there is? Show me where, from one minute to one minute ten seconds in that video - show us the damage
OKay, so tell us what you really think hit the WTC, if anything?
"That's what actually happened. " is referring to the video of what actually happened.
The simulation shows what might have happened inside the building. From the outside the simulations and the videos look fairly similar.
I know. So: Can't you see the problems inherent in this?
Why don't you explain it.
That it's fairly accurate?
Would you expect it to differ from what happened?
I stand by everything I've said about the simulation video. It's a simulation of what might have happened inside the building.
really? So after being so damaged - a small fraction of a second later it's entirely reduced to shreds - how did it still have the mass and force available to destroy multiple core columns?
It's an assumption based on my recollection of your previous statements, and the consistency of your position with the majority of truthers who do not believe in the progressive collapse theory.
Do you believe in it?
Lee does not even believe in progressive collapse by gravity alone.
That it's fairly accurate?
Would you expect it to differ from what happened?
I stand by everything I've said about the simulation video.
This argument (steel vs aluminium) is pointless. No one knows the details of exactly what happened in the seconds following the impact of the planes.
What is known is that the buildings progressively collapsed starting from the impact floor, downwards (and not from some other level).
Clearly, either the impact or the fire compromised the building structure at that level such that the weight above could no longer be supported.
No, it's critical. Aluminium is soft as shite and steel is nails. When shite and nails collide it's not nails scattered everywhere - it's shite. The argument goes far deeper than what you are talking about. This is about the veracity of sources claiming to be neutral and scientific. This is about Principia. Isaac Newton. Laws of the physical universe. If you crashed your motor into a r/c wall at 500mph full on, what would happen to it? Would it pass through and then fall apart?
So tell us exactly what you think happened. If you do not think a 767 hit the WTC, then what was it?
So tell us exactly what you think happened. If you do not think a 767 hit the WTC, then what was it?
I mean, presumably you're a pilot. Even if you haven't flown a large jet (and maybe you have), I reckon you'd have a good idea of what you might expect to see in such a collision. What would you expect to see?
I do my best to avoid colliding into buildings.
Come on, I am sure you can tell us what you really think. The "I dont know" and "i am just asking questions" stuff is just for milquetoast beta types who are not real men. i am sure you have formulated an idea, tell us what you think happened.
You know, this film expects us to believe that the steel failed in all cases of contact with the aircraft. 100% failure rate for the steel; 0% failure rate for the aircraft. Could this be right?
Of course, since an intact 767 just went right through the other side, and kept flying on its merry way to its destination for landing, since apparently in your world, our arguments are exactly that.
Is that 'okay' an indication that you agree that this is not a likely scenario? (That there was no deformation of the aircraft as it slices through the steel outer perimeter)
Here's a reminder of what we're talking about;
It's just that you seem to have deviated from the point - so you think it's likely or not likely?
Nope, you said 0% failure for the aircraft, so therefore you think that it was intact.
Yes I think that a large aircraft, striking a structure like that, is going to be reduced to little pieces. And no, I do not think a plane going at 500 mph or so, is going to visible crumple along its length, like pressing a beer can into a wall. Nor is it going to slow like it was an naval fighter on an aircraft carrier, nor is it going to stick out like a dart in a dart board.
I am still sure you have some kind of idea of what you think actually happened, i would find it hard to believe that you have yet to come up with something, 10 years later. What are your thoughts on the other theories, such as mini nukes, holograms, cruise missiles, death rays, rigged charges in the building, that have been put forth?