Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Les Robertson, the same one in the link I provided.
Les Robertson who said that the assumption was that the 707 would be going 180mph, not full speed. Does that video mention that part? Does the video talk about the significant difference in kinetic energy between a 707 going 180mph that's used up most of it's fuel and on landing (Les Robertson's basis for his calculations), and a fully loaded 707 going full speed? I didn't watch the video, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they didn't.
Les Robertson who said that they didn't take the fire from such an impact into an account at all?
Les Robertson who's comments imply he thought that the towers performed BETTER than expected by staying up longer than the designs would have implied?
See, there's this thing called quote mining, taking quotes from someone out of context to support something they didn't say. Seems you were taken in by some clever quote mining.
|
Kinda of like the photo mining that Dylan Avery did in loose change with the airplane parts.
"Yes there were no airplane parts at the Pentagon", except in the pictures that he didn't use which had copious airplane parts.
I would like to see a lawyer building a court case where he heavily edits information, tosses out anthing that doesn't back his case and then plays the denial game when the rest of the evidence comes out.