There appears to be credible evidence that AQ was involved in planning and orchestrating the attacks.

To date, credible evidence implicating others has not been presented.

Oh wow this is the best, Jiggs is the real life Patches O'Hoolihan

Lol. Is this like last time where you pretend like you want to discuss something. Then refuse to tell us what you think until we answer a bunch of your questions. And then you call me a coward because you don't realize that I answered your question already?

Stop covering up past US atrocities. You're clearly just an apologist too ignorant of your countries past mistakes.

LOL... you p****.

Fine. I'll play along. I must have missed your previous "attempt" at an answer. Could you provide it again?

oh, that... yes. I thought you were talking about something else from my post.

There was a "dip" in the Dodgeball line? My mistake.

No. Because you keep dodging the **** people ask you.

Nobody cares enough about what you think to play your silly games.

But if you really care about my opinion you can start with how I voted in the poll and read what I've posted I this thread. The truth is out there.

lol, you weren't a drafter, but you were plenty involved.

Wookie's infinite tolerance for ike's bs is becoming clear to me- brothas from another motha.

It should take a lot less effort to properly conceptualize what Jiggs meant (because it's obvious) than to semanikes some straw man out of it. Or maybe the point just to derail away from the main point.

Agreed "You can't handle the truth" is right on. But I would put Wolfowitz on the stand. His idea of us not being able to handle the truth figures to be more in line with the conventional American conception of the real functioning republic, in which a few elites handle the serious business, mainly in their own interests, and the masses are manipulated with mythology and lies.

What's amazing is that, 5,000 posts in, the Bush apologists still think they have a leg to stand on. Mind you, I'm not saying any alternative theory has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that anyone seriously discussing this issue has any confidence whatsoever in the official reports continually surprises me.

Like the execution of their premeditated policy programs which were all conditioned on 911 and for which their expressed need of a massive terrorist attack is documented?

Let's see...the neocons had been creaming their pants to invade Iraq and several other Middle East countries for the better part of a decade. They stated they needed a massive terrorist attack to achieve their policy goals. They infiltrated the executive branch and proceeded to do everything possible short of packing their lunch to enable 19 kids to pull off mission literally impossible. They then commit further crimes to justify the execution of their plans, which were also inherently criminal (FYI wars of aggression and torture are illegal).

But to suggest the 911 attacks fit logically into this context is to fail miserably. Got it.

You should work hard on seeing the distinction between modeling the entire collapse and an experiment to demonstrate a few principles which to apply to the debated models.

This is clear to all of us, and it seems that we are all waiting until you finally start discussing those principles.

I don't agree with how you analogize to the TT because you compare only the favorable aspects while ignoring the more significant unfavorable aspects. But I do agree with your evaluation of the experiment itself.

Again, I agree with your explanation of the motion and energy. Now, what if I told you there was no such deceleration observed of the falling block of the north tower as it encounters the intact structure below? This is a 3-minute video reviewing the video evidence showing that there is no effective energy transferring impact between the top block and the intact remainder:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk

This disproves Bazant's pile driving thesis.

There are some research papers on this if you were interested in a more formal presentation.

The idea that uneven sporadic heating of the steel elements would lead to a symmetric "falling" is beyond incredible. But assume it did for a moment. To analogize from the experiment to the buildings we would have to assume the incident bowling ball is falling on other bowling balls stacked up. As I have argued with Newton's laws and shown in several real world videos, when like hits like both actors become deformed. So the incident bowling ball would be damaged as well as the target ball(s). This will always happen. I defy any of you to show me where it doesn't and where this Bazant phenomenon occurs. I have shown examples where it doesn't. That the fire collapse theorists cannot produce one example of the phenomenon they claim fell two giant skyscrapers is just another way to see what they are saying is false- not that this is actually needed at this point.

Principles you've repeatedly shown you don't understand or won't understand because they discredit your pet theory. Of course there is a way to structure the experiment so the bowling ball won't go through any of the panes just like there is a way to configure so the bowling ball will. You and the boat guy are the only ones who don't seem to understand that if you drop more dynamic load on a structure than it can withstand that it's going to collapse and continue collapsing until something that can support the dynamic load presents itself.

It's very funny that your bowling ball analogy is essentially the same as the aluminum can analogy that you went nuts over up thread...

In that video you can't see what is happening at the interface between the falling floors and the stationary floors. There is too much dust. What evidence do you have that the falling block was not deformed during the collapse?

Yes, please!

I'm ready to be awestruck by the authors' credentials and by the reputation of the journals that published those research papers. (plural!)

he's refering to the ultra serious sciency truther-reviewed journal of 9/11 studies

since you have never explained what the more significant unfavorable aspects of the experiment are, nobody knows what you are talking about.

how adorable that you can link to a video that says the top part came down with an acceleration of 6.31 m/s^2 and claim that there was no deceleration. So where does the difference between gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s^2) and the measured acceleration come from? I would call that deceleration, but maybe you have invented another word for it.

This video is the same nonsense as Chandler wrote in his article that I have been trying to discuss with you forever.

Good job, you managed to make the bowling ball analogy even worse!

Who is saying the top part is not being damaged in the process? It's invisible in the video, and for Bazant's thesis to work it's not necessary at all that the top part isn't being damaged.

While Bazant assumes the top part to be a rigid body and it not being damaged in the process, he does that only to simplify the calculations and notes that when it disintegrates the outcome could be different, it's the only assumption that is somewhat favorable for collapse, all the others assumptions he makes are unfavorable.

And then he finds: the dynamic forces released when the top part falls onto the bottom part are orders of magnitude greater than what it could support.

What does that tell you?

Citation needed

As I said, the 20+ story building that was the part that fell would do way more than just barely smash lower floors.

I'm not evaluating the evidence first hand. Just using reason and favouring what is most likely. In this case, it's all the people showing it falls slower than freefall.

Also, floor by floor isn't necessarily a perfect description. Vertical supports span many floors and failures could affect many floors at a time.

You'd be lying. Not surprising though.

By tracking the motion of the building you can see what isn't happening. The top block is not colliding with the remaining building.

When we are talking about the top block after collapse initiation we are talking about Bazant's pile driver theory- I'm trying to refute it and the fire collapse theorists are trying to lol defend it. Under that theory, the top block crushes the remainder down and then crushes itself against the ground. This is the only mechanism the official story promotes as viable and it's complete horse**** on it's surface. I suspect it has benefited from approximating a literal viewing of what happened before dust engulfed the action. However a closer look at the video evidence clearly shows Bazant had it way wrong. In fairness to him, he did publish his theory a day or two after 9/11 and you can't expect too much from a rush job absent of any forensic analysis.

I think you should address my free body diagrams.

Typical doublespeak here. Why don't you just clear it up and give an outline of what you think Bazant is saying. Let me know what happens to the core too lol.

I think you should take up my challenge and show us something that looks like a controlled demolition but isn't.