http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
Here is a scientific argument having to do with what can/should happen in an impact--as IT SHOULD BE DONE. BY PROFESSIONALS.
Also, marski, you certainly did say you knew the physics.
Literally your exact words.
I cant believe you sit there telling me about physics, thats the JOKE bro. Not only do I know the physics are wrong....
See any problems with that statement?
Here's some more:
Also lets point out since you know physics so well in the non live footage aka the "Hezarkhani" footage you see the plane go straight into the building without bending, breaking, twisting or blowing up in to pieces, alone defies physics(As well as the plane going through both sides). What helps understand WHY it defied physics is when he shows the single frame paused of the plane hitting the building, you can clearly see the planes wing is all the way into the building but the tip of the wing is still poking out. In REAL physics the planes nose, wings,engines EVERYTHING would have broken off and not just melted into the building.
Literally all of what you say here is addressed in the above article, in painstaking detail (the way it should be with matters like this).
The examples don't stop there:
I have to say it one more time.. a planes nose is hollow and made of plastic.. it could not penetrate a very sturdy steel building and come out the other side still completely intact.
Where in any of these statements are you not purporting yourself to know a helluva lot more than you really do about physics?
Answer: Nowhere. Your statements actually come in the form of pre-supposing that you know what should have happened. This is painfully close to a fallacy--and I should think that any of these statements (to be made with any confidence) imply at least SOME perceived expertise [which it is clear you do
not have].
If you make the statements without confidence, well then thanks for your conjecture--seeya later.
I'm trying to figure out where I haven't been listening to anything you've said. The fact is this--most of what you've said as it relates to the actual scientific analysis has been rambling without purpose or direction, I should know--I just poured through all of it a second time looking for examples of you saying and implying you knew the physics.
You presuppose almost everything, offer no explanation--and expect that your word should be good enough. Since you previously spoke of the real world, I'll reference that. In the real world, your word isn't good enough to justify accusing the American government of mass murder by explosion and demolition.
That's the issue here, and that's why I get to sit on my high horse. Not only is all of science and reason with me--so are honor, respect, and just plain old decency.
When you go anywhere and make an ass of yourself by crying murder at the government from the mountaintops (in some misguided attempt to get the true culprit--whilst subsequently erasing the wrongs of the actual ones)--I get to be an asshole to you.
I get to be an asshole because I say so--you should be glad that
I actually have been doing it in a fairly respectful manner. I should've just called you names from the get go and blocked you. I don't remember making any statements about people's age, or falling into name-calling or thinly-veiled sarcasm. That came from the other side first, I've simply sent you a return salvo. How's it taste?
Enjoy the read--maybe it'll give you some perspective on what a real theory is. You see, it actually takes more than some googling and wiki searches to know what the fuck you're talking about as it goes to these types of things.
You can't lazy your way out of everything. Maybe some things, but certainly not physics arguments. Either you know the shit, you learn it, or you don't know it. You are in column C as it goes to this. It couldn't be any more clear if it were biting all of us in our faces. So either get in column B or go back to doing whatever the hell it is that you do best (I'm sure there's something, technology you say--do that).
I'm not saying you might not be right, I'm saying you can't prove it and you've done a shit job of trying to.
So stop it.
Let's move on to some shit you have experience with--I'm more than happy to hear any other proof that you might have regarding something which you haven't pulled from your ass.