Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:

In article <8erm92du5tadvss1lq56h8k9j74mtfcdsb@4ax.com>, newskat@katxyzkave.net says...

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:36:41 +0000 (UTC), you@somehost.somedomain.aus (Your
Name Here=Harvey) wrote:

All commercial airliners who are off course for a certain amount of
time, are routinely assumed to be in a worse case scenario, and are
earmarked to be checked out - by jet fighters if need be,

Horsepucky, that was never policy until AFTER the WTC attack.

With the billions invested in Norad, which has the
potential to track any stray flying object within US airspace -

Again, bullshit, NOT what they did before 9-11.

The reason why the first plane hit the Twin Towers, seems to be that
some kind of test scenario was being undertaken at the time,

More bullshit.

Why not check YOUR version against the truth at www.911myths.com ??

Oh, it struck exactly where it was recently strengthened,
and also where it could do the least amount of damage, and of casualities.

DAMN those terrorists who can't keep up with the news!

The experts have to be checked out, and known if they are paid by the
US Government for saying what they say...

That is, of course, the LAMEST argument that anyone can bring.




Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...

             Remove XYZ to email me

Ha, experts have to be checked out, to see if they are not
politically influenced, or simply being paid to say something that
the government wants to be heard.

So how about this site, for trying to do a fair and reasonable job
at sorting some facts out?

http://www.physics911.net/

That "fair and reasonable" site contains so many howlers that you have to be quite far gone to take anything it says as the truth, let alone informed.

I picked one article at random, laughably entitled "Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center" and had to laugh at the inanity leaping from the page.

http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm

Picking some incredulity from the page at random:

    "What struck me first "

Nothing subjective here then.

    "was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the
    South Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight
    175, which weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350    
    mph,"

What struck me was this dunderhead attempting to minimize the weight and speed of the aircraft. An *empty* 767-200 weighs 170,000 pounds. One laden with fuel (enough to fly to LAX), passengers and cargo is much heavier. Oh and it was flying a mere 200 mph faster when it struck.

    "did not even visibly move the building when it slammed into it"

I didn't realise the guy was standing in the building to make such a statement. Perhaps he wasn't. Perhaps the fuckwit (as is common with kooks) pronounced judgement after downloading some shakey pixellated clip shot from 1/2 a mile away from somewhere.

Funnily enough, people who were actually in the building when it was struck say categorically that it swayed., e.g.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

"For seven to ten seconds there was this enormous sway in the building. It was one way, and I just felt in my heart, Oh my gosh, we are going over."

Back to frootloop on physics911:

    "How, I wondered, could a building that did not visibly move
    from a heavy high speed projectile collapse at near freefall
    speed less than an hour later? "

"Near freefall" being the new weasel phrase in the kook lexicon. It used to be plain "freefall" until kooks were laughed at. Hence the undefined "near" tacked on the front.

    "Next, I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in
    freefall next to the building as it collapsed. The beams were
    falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were    
    descending. "

No they weren't. The dolt even shows a picture sequence later in his article which clearly shows the debris falling faster than the building is collapsing. Close up shots exist where steel beams are clearly falling faster too. Debris was falling so much faster that its clearly 20-30 stories ahead of the main collapse in the second shot show in this very article.

    "Familiar with elementary physics, including principles of    
    conservation of energy and momentum, "

This guy is clearly unfamiliar with any physics or he wouldn't have spouted that previous section.

    "this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed
    "pancaking," which is the official theory. "

As his own pictures piss all over his "near freefall" argument, we can conclude the guy is an idiot. I laughed at the bit at the end

    "Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, is a
    builder and engaged citizen in Berkeley, California. "

If you scanned that too fast, you might think Dave Heller got his degrees from Berkley University. Personally I think he found them in a dumpster.

The whole site is much like this, incredulity in spades but not too many brain cells.