Originally posted by Reality Hurts
You are a broken record about physics, which doesn't even remotely have anything to do with any of my posts.
Ignore me if you wish I couldn't care less, I've been ignored by the best.
How does my question not have anything to do with your posts? The lack of resistance is a MAJOR point in regards to the thread topic, '100% proof of
controlled demolition'. I asked you the question, in regard to a post you made, because it is extremely important to the whole context of the WTC
collapses. Because until you can justify the lack of resistance any other argument you have is a waste of time. Any other point of the collapses you
can refute does not change the fact that the buildings, all 3, fell with no sign of friction/resistance in accordance with the laws of physics... (as
well as other laws such as 'conservation of momentum', but just one is enough)
Friction is the resistive force acting between bodies that tends to oppose and damp out motion. Friction is usually distinguished as being either
static friction (the frictional force opposing placing a body at rest into motion) and kinetic friction (the frictional force tending to slow a body
in motion). In general, static friction is greater than kinetic friction.
The force due to kinetic friction is generally proportional to the applied force, so "a coefficient of kinetic fiction" is defined as the ratio of
frictional force to the normal force on the body.
The study of friction is called tribology.
Source
Yes I'm a broken record, and yes I can see I'm annoying you with my persistence to get you to make a statement regarding the lack of resistance.
If you know my posting history you are about the eighth person who I've gone through this with, and guess what? Every one of them acted in the same
way you have, failure to jump to the challenge and half a dozen posts dodging the subject. I mean you have all done your research right? You are all
convinced the official story is correct, right? So why can’t you answer this simple question and shut me up? C’mon when has anybody on ATS ever
not answered a question when they know the answer? You want to keep it secret from me?
Just admit you don’t know, how about that, a bit of
honesty?
But then you would have to admit the official story has not explained the collapses, right? Can’t be allowing any doubt to creep in now can
we?...
People want to complicate the collapse argument with irrelevant crap when the simple truth is right in front of us. Regardless of what fantasy theory
you believe in as to how the towers collapsed, it wasn't from aircraft impacts, office fires or gravity. None of those have the energy to overcome
friction and resistance. Why do you think NIST failed to explain the collapse beyond its initiation, and then tried to convince people the complete
collapse was inevitable once initiated? Anyone with any common sense can see that is just garbage.
I’m bugging you for a reason, and I hope people can see why...
Right down to the anti-capitalist signature
No bias there...
