I'd like to point out that I read each argument and directly addressed each point in my posts instead of just posting links. I have never brought questioning any source's credibility into the argument and based my cause on scientific accuracy. No one has defeated me on these grounds.
Quoted from the above link in
orange:
"
The 9/11 coverup deals with the conspiracy theory that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were not terrorist acts but were in fact committed by the US government."
The focus is
not conspiracy theories, I can't stress that enough. Nor pointing fingers; it's determining how the towers fell and why by using know evidence and scientific methods.
"
9/11 conspiracy theorists often say they're poking holes in the "official" story, which is that terrorists hijacked four planes, flew one into each World Trade tower and one into the Pentagon, and while they flew the fourth toward an unknown target it was taken down by the passengers."
This has nothing to do with disproving that^.
"
None of the scientific reports mention anything close to melting or pulverizing of steel as the conspiracy theorists claim."
They're not accurate.
(Skip to 5:50 for footage of the molten steel) This isn't easy to watch, it shows the tower falling and footage of the cleanup weeks later where temperatures are still extremely hot. Don't watch if you don't want to see traumatic footage. There isn't any gore or things like that.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Pretext_WTC2_molten_metal.wmv
"
The conspiracy theorists are correct when they say that this alone would not have caused the towers to collapse, but what it did do was weaken the structure and cause residual stresses on the floor trusses. Once they began to give way, the structure could no longer hold the weight. This aspect of the residual stresses and the loss of the floor trusses does not seem to have been addressed at all by the conspiracy theorists, yet the scientific examinations show them to be the direct cause of the collapse."
How could an explosion start at the top of the building? There's no weight to crush it. After the top was blown out where did the needed weight come from. Even if there was the weight the resistance of the structure under would prevent freefall acceleration. All this^ was addressed but that report's sources were from '05 and earlier and AE911 was formed in '06.
Video footage of collapses:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/eviden...ootage/306-wtc1-a-wtc2-demolition-videos.html
"
The South Tower actually tipped to one side as it fell, as that was the side that had lost most of its structure. The North Tower fell straighter because it lost more of its structure on the core. Even so, the towers falling straight down is no indication of deliberate demolition."
How could the top of the south tower tip to one side and immediately cause a symmetrical, near free fall speed, strait down collapse with out controlled demolition involved?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/symmetry.html
^Good read.
"
The towers were mostly empty and had no lateral load to push them over to one side."
Not true.
"
The speed at which they collapsed gave them too much inertia to go anywhere except straight down."
So why did debris shoot out sideways over 600ft during the entire collapse?
To save room I'll not cover WT7 and the pentagon wasn't part of this to begin with.
Feelings are feelings. Science can be proven or defeated if faulty.
I'd like to see step 3 being applied to my points or at least have them addressed like I'm taking the time do do for other people's. If the science and process isn't complete and reliable the source isn't.
As addressed above, that largely skips the issue and is inaccurate. Please answer our points instead of questioning credibility with logic like popular opinion. And where'd you get the "vs. millions"?
If we rule out scenarios like 'you could be dreaming all this', theories can be proven inaccurate. Which I have done several times. The reason people haven't disproved the demolition theory is it's correct.
Thankyou.
Where's the 9/11 stuff?
Ok, this link
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?156676 is quoted in
yellow.
"
Expressions for consistent energy potentials are formulated and an exact analytical solution of a special case is given. It is shown that progressive collapse will be triggered if the total (internal) energy loss during the crushing of one story (equal to the energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential during the crushing of that story) exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story."
What kinetic energy? The entire building (WTC North or example) was blown outward 600 ft with enough force to hurl steel girders at 70mph. This started from the top at imediate freefall acceleration. The kinetic energy isn't going into the fall and resistance is present. You 'can't squeeze blood from a turnip'.
"
Regardless of the load capacity of the columns"
I don't see his logic in this.
"
There is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone if this criterion is satisfied"
Which it wasn't. There's no inclusion of asymmetrical fire and impact damage in their theory either.
"
The parameters are the compaction ratio of a crushed story, the fracture of mass ejected outside the tower perimeter, and the energy dissipation per unit height. The last is the most important, yet the hardest to predict theoretically. It is argued that, using inverse analysis, one could identify these parameters from a precise record of the motion of floors of a collapsing building."
This^ is what AE9/11 did to conclude controlled demolition. Also the structural damage was not evenly distributed, the weakened side fell strait down at the same rate as the undamaged side with greater resistance.
"
Due to a shroud of dust and smoke, the videos of the World Trade Center are only of limited use."
No the undeniable recorded evidence is crucial. Otherwise it's a matter of theory crafting how the tragedy occurred without factoring what did occur during and after.
------------------------------------------------------
About credibility,
Spontaneous generation (like rats generating from spoiled meat) appeared logical and was widely accepted as true until Francesco Redi used science to prove otherwise in 1668.
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm
---------------------------------------------------
I've done my part by reading and answering opposing posts. Please do the same for me. But know, as skeptic as people are at first, no one's ever disproved me in this debate.
