911 WTC crash animation errors
 

Without the old Board I'm not sure if this topic has been covered previously, but I had not come across this technical correction request until this morning:

http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPr.../PROD01_002621

Once you get past the formalities it's extremely interesting physics.

Interesting perhaps but flawed and ill informed all the same.

I'd like to hear more, Chris (on or off line) - it seemed like a logical argument to me. I'm not defending the tone of his request or its legitimacy, but I'd like to know what you see as the flaws in the reasoning underlying his critique

I could trawl thru Mr Reynolds comprehensive ramblings and pick his arguments apart.. if I could be bothered.
But an example of his highly qualified and thourough engineering analysis..

http://www.pbase.com/chrisg/image/96604668.jpg

If he is unaware that these avian impacts have only damaged the skin and not affected in the slightest the much more massive structural components beneath then the rest of his story can also be discarded.

Cheers


PS while Mr Reynolds maintains that no part of his website may be reproduced or linked the above image is included for academic purposes(if there is any copyright on those images I will be willing to bet Mr Reynolds is not the holder of those rights and likely has no legal access to them.)

I thought I had to post here as I feel strongly about this topic. Whilst not knowing anyone involved in the 911 tragedy I feel a strong connection to it, and in addition to that dispelling any rumours/theories etc. Because after all ladies and gentleman, theories are predictions are hypothesis are a way of pretending how something happened, they are not the reality. Its like in science, a prediction is never a theory/law unless it has been experimented on and given proof over and over again for many years, budding scientists will know this!

Anyways back onto topic more succintly and I have to agree with Chris that anyone who agrees or backs Mr Reynolds should be banished to never see the light of day. You watch the films like Loose Change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28film%29
Everyone if not most know what im talking about. These guys are nothing but amateurists who are trying to make a profit and bank on a terrible disaster. I look at some of the people around me who are programmers and able people with computers and video editing and to be honest, with photoshop and some good video editor anyone could produce a Loose Change film. This Reynolds guy has no clue and should be discredited at every instance, its no wonder his family turned against him (read some articles on the net re this).

Now everyones entitled to their opinion, but when it concerns 3000 innocent people losing their lives, one like Mr Reynolds is abominable.
Regards,
Matt

Matt, most democracies feature something called "free speech." Like it or not, everyone has a right to express their opinion on a matter, however outrageous. Do you have to listen? No.

The problem is they can 'infect' otherwise intelligent people.

Had a mate ring up a few weeks ago and one of the things he talked about was wanting to send me a DVD with an 11/9 'docmentary' on it, that explained how it was all a consiracy because of the way one of the building fell down.
FFS ..... !
I used to think he was reasonably smart.

The problem with free speech is that is allows the massive voice of the ignorant.

I love Fred Phelps...

Let's all go to Westboro!!!:D

Kent