Science
Bertrand Russell:
I've no doubt that this quote can be applied to both sides of the 9/11 debate.
But there is one way out of this trap-- good science.
SCIENCE says there is something wrong with the official collapse story for the WTC buildings.
SCIENCE says the videos and images of the 2nd plane do not add up.
SCIENCE says the plane-shaped holes in the WTC violate basic physical laws.
SCIENCE (indeed basic logic) says that the tail of UA175 should have broken off as the plane went in, since the steel columns did not have a hole where the tail section went in-- yet the video shows the tail section smoothly gliding INTO the building.
SCIENCE says the official version of the flight 93 crash, how it both disintegrated and disappeared into the ground, violates basic physical laws.
SCIENCE says cell phones do not work well if at all from high altitude planes.
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.
I've no doubt that this quote can be applied to both sides of the 9/11 debate.
But there is one way out of this trap-- good science.
SCIENCE says there is something wrong with the official collapse story for the WTC buildings.
SCIENCE says the videos and images of the 2nd plane do not add up.
SCIENCE says the plane-shaped holes in the WTC violate basic physical laws.
SCIENCE (indeed basic logic) says that the tail of UA175 should have broken off as the plane went in, since the steel columns did not have a hole where the tail section went in-- yet the video shows the tail section smoothly gliding INTO the building.
SCIENCE says the official version of the flight 93 crash, how it both disintegrated and disappeared into the ground, violates basic physical laws.
SCIENCE says cell phones do not work well if at all from high altitude planes.
posted by spooked at 9:20 AM
4 Comments:
The experts at the biggest Demolition Industry site on the web have weighed in on 9-11 CT's.
Guess whose side they're on?
http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf
You wouldn't know science if it bit your nose off.
wow you would think those demo guys would be able to explain why all the concrete in the wtc1&2 were turned into powder simultaneous to the columns being ejected out and away when gravity alone doesn't supply enough energy to do that. maybe they are not as authoritative as they are made out to be?
you know, all these guys have done is another "debunking 911 myths" type of a thing, they just seem more authoritative. maybe they got a new advisor or something.
xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf
Thanks for the link. There are several debatable points in the piece, and at least a couple of mistakes.
I might as well point out is that the article was written by an editor of a magazine that covers implosions and by a team that studies vibrations relating to building structures, not by someone who actually does the work-- since you guys are so hung up on qualifications and all. Are these guys "structural engineers"????
Ultimately, many people have an interest in protecting the official story, including these guys. And even these people do not say the buildings were not brought down by demolition, just that it is unlikely from their point of view.
They spend some time critiqueing Jones-- and I myself have problems with Jones and his thermite story.
I'll see if I can put together a proper rebuttal.
Post a Comment
<< Home