|
Yeah, the last Nike batteries were retired in the 70s, we haven't had an anti-aircraft defense system deployed widely in the US in 30 years prior to 9/11. ICBMs made that a thing of the past.
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Well There's Your Problem covered the WTC tower collapse pretty well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Qop_64qqk
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:I mean if you go and actually read the report or at least just watch the video of the authors presenting its findings it's pretty clear about what it is; it attempts to explain why the NIST report in particular erroneously came to the conclusion that fire caused the collapse and identifies the specific problems in NIST's methodology that led them to that conclusion. If you can show that "the most sensible conclusion" is scientifically wrong, which (and of course, I am not a scientist nor an engineer) seems to be what they have done, surely that warrants more than a handwave? Hulsey is literally the only one who believes this and his study has been outright rejected by everyone else. This is literally "One study says something I agree with so they must be right!" fallacy of conspiracy theories. And again: Fire doesn't HAVE to cause the collapse. Fire just needs to weaken the steel enough to collapse and most structural fires, fueled by everything around them, get significantly hot enough to weaken steel past its malleable point.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 23:25
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:I'm not saying I believe it, I said I saw it and hadn't seen it refuted. If it has been then please, enlighten me. I thought that was the point of this thread? A study doesn't always have to be refuted to be false. He's one guy, from a podunk university who disagrees with the scientific/engineering majority including major institutions like NIST and others.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 23:51
|
|