100% PROOF of Controlled Demolitions @ WTC

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Now theres a man with an open mind

Right down to the anti-capitalist signature

No bias there...

Can't refute the claim so attack the messenger, typical!

What has my opinion on capitalism got to do with physics, and how does that bias my interpretation of those physics? I'd love to know.

If there is a problem with my statement on the 'law of resistance' then please explain what it is I'm not understanding. If you think I'm wrong and it is possible for a building, or any object, to fall onto itself following the path of most resistance and not be slowed down by that 'resistance', as explained by the 'law of resistance', then please share your knowledge.

Can you explain what NIST failed to even attempt? I doubt it or you would not have stooped to the low tactic you did. You must be taking lessons from the captain, it's pretty obvious...

You asserted I'm closed minded because of my opinion of capitalism, yet you can't even see what the truth is because your opinions are so coloured by your conditioning to believe what your keepers are telling you.

(btw the resistance problem is just one of many physics problems that make a global gravity fed collapse impossible).

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by IvanZana

 

Hello,

Interesting...no time reference provided. Only two 'booms'...they sounded very similar, actually to sonic booms. If you've ever heard one, you would remember that it is a double boom sound...with almost that same timing. I daresay the military was not worried about going supersonic over land on that day...

It became obvious they were not worried about protecting the US that day either. Would that be the same military jets not worried about protecting us citizens, and, instead, more worried with being able to continue playing anti-terrorism war games on 9/11/2001?

You can continue to rationalize your way through the "official" reports, plus make it up as you go along, or begin to use logical reason to recognize all the severe inconsistencies in the "official" reports. Only you can make the desicion which one appeals most to you.

reply to post by talisman


How about molecular disintegration all the way down, including almost all steel?

Originally posted by ANOK
Can't refute the claim so attack the messenger, typical!

What has my opinion on capitalism got to do with physics, and how does that bias my interpretation of those physics?

It has everything to do with it.

You are no stranger to these boards and, in addition, a quick glance at your history gives a clear picture. In your threads and posts, you represent yourself as being a socialist, anti-royalist, anti-corporate, anti-Gulf War, and anti-Bush. Is is any wonder that anyone might call your motives into question? It stretches the imagination to think that you can give an objective analysis of anything 9/11 related without leaving something out.

And to address your "attack the messenger" comment- When you find me a messenger who doesn't have a vested interest in the message, then maybe he wont get shot down. So quit playing the innocent victim.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
...Is is any wonder that anyone might call your motives into question? It stretches the imagination to think that you can give an objective analysis of anything 9/11 related without leaving something out...

...then maybe he wont get shot down. So quit playing the innocent victim.

Wow again you want to personally attack the messenger instead of addressing the point made. My political opinions have nothing to do with the points I'm making and you know that, but because you can't refute my claims you stoop to attacking my opinion on subjects having nothing to do with physics.

As a government and capitalism supporter couldn't I say you're biased too? LOL What are your motives? Does it matter as long as what is being said is fact and can be verified? If you find holes in my thinking then point them out.

I haven't been shot down and I'm not playing innocent victim. I asked a simple question that you are obviously scared of, or you would have made an attempt to answer it. But no you dodge it by trying to discredit my points by claiming I'm biased.

How many more times are we going to go back and forth like this before you actually address my original post that started our discourse...

Quit with your opinions about my opinions and address my point about the physics. Thanx...

My point, consistent through this thread, has been about securing real, tangible, and objective proof as well as taking an unbiased viewpoint. Somehow though, I don't see you addressing my points, only vainly attempting to dazzle us with your self proclaimed background in physics. I will not give in to it and will continue to extol the virtues unbiased and objective opinions, and ask that we put our biases aside and be realistic.

And in no way have I attacked you, that sir, is preposterous.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
...And in no way have I attacked you, that sir, is preposterous.

You just keep proving my point. 3 replies now and you have yet to address the point of this discussion and you continue to be personal. No where have I said I have any background in physics, you are reading too much into what is being said. All I did was put forth a physics law that seems to have a relivance to the buildings collapses and ask if any of you de-bunkers can explain it. All you can do is question my credibility and get personal.

Are you going to discus the physics or are you just going to waffle on about virtues? If you have a problem with my understanding of the physics I bring up then please put me straight on the physics. It's very simple. If you can't do that then pls refrain from attacking me personally.

I've tried to not to say it but it's becoming very obvious you don't understand the physics enough to even have an opinion let alone claim to be able to argue against what I'm saying. You will prove me right by focusing on this very paragraph in your next reply, and ignoring once again the real point of the discussion...

And btw I've never been knighted but thanx for the title!

You are a broken record about physics, which doesn't even remotely have anything to do with any of my posts. Why on earth are you trying to corner me into discussing it when I haven't even made one mention of it in the entire thread? You want me to address your one meager contribution to this topic, while you ignore all of mine.

Once you quit avoiding my posts and address them, then, if your arguments seem valid, I'll address yours. So, feel free to dazzle me. However, if you continue on this path of pestering me into an argument, you will force me write you off as a troll and force me to simply ignore your further posts.

Anyways........



This video shows almost exactly what happened at the WTC.

You will notice you cannot see "flashes" and "squibs" either.

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...

Your right ANok, You ask very intelligent questions and from what I see from your history you ask the right question for they seem to be dodged.


Your contributions is what makes my experience here worthwhile.


I would like to hear the answer to your questions tho. These dubunkers almost troll threads and demand almost impossible proofs than when asked of them they dissapear.

[edit on 8-2-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
It stretches the imagination to think that you can give an objective analysis of anything 9/11 related without leaving something out.

And to address your "attack the messenger" comment- When you find me a messenger who doesn't have a vested interest in the message, then maybe he wont get shot down. So quit playing the innocent victim.

But, yet you parot the official story? Yeah, they didn't have any "vested interest" in it at all.

[edit on 2/8/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by IvanZana



Nice video. Let's look at it side by side.





Yup. No similarities there. /sarcasm.

So much for the "demolitions have to be bottom-up demolitions" argument. Eh?

I'm looking for the quote by the "expert" in demolition that says the towers couldn't have been CD'd because it was top-down and not bottom-up. Anyone have that?

Here's something interesting.

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Sounds exactly like what we saw. No?

When buildings are blown from the bottom only, they could end up looking like this:

www.youtube.com...

Or this:

www.youtube.com...

Or this method, though often quite inefficient, has been known to work when all other methods are removed from the feasibility equation:

www.youtube.com...

This is what happens when primary vertical supports are removed from the primary horizontal loading bearing supports directly above them:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by IvanZana


Thanks IvanZana for those videos.
I watched them all, but for me, it doesn’t matter anymore how many more videos will be showed.
I see over the years dozens of them, so my mind is already made up
Definitely controlled demolition, absolute no doubt about that.

JEROME HAUER

Jerome Hauer is best known for being the director of the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) when he made the decision to build a $13 million crisis center on the 23rd floor at 7 World Trade Center. This crisis center was unveiled in June 1999, and became the subject of tension between the agency and the Police Department, whose own command center at 1 Police Plaza had until then been the focus of emergency preparedness operations.

As the first director of the new crisis center, "one of Hauer’s first tasks was to find a home for an emergency command center to replace the inadequate facilities at police headquarters," according to the Times.


Reports indicate that the OEM crisis center at the World Trade Center was not being used on 9-11 by the usual personnel. The center had been temporarily relocated to Pier 92 on Manhattan’s West Side, due to a FEMA drill which was supposed to begin on the day after 9-11, according to statements made by Mayor Giuliani. The site was immediately controversial because it was part of the trade center, which had already been the location of a truck bomb attack in 1993. City officials, though, including Mr. Hauer, have long defended their decision, even after the command center had to be evacuated during the 2001 terror attack. The OEM crisis center in WTC 7 is suspected as being the control center for the pre-planned demolition of the towers. The center, and all of the evidence of the crime, was destroyed when the 47-story tower was completely demolished at about 5:25 p.m. on 9-11

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 14-2-2008 by IvanZana]

i swear wikipedia is nothing but a cleverly disguised GATEKEEPING SITE!




jerry hauer says rudy didn't take his recommendations to NOT put the stinking demolition command bunker, er, emergency command bunker in WTC7.

rudy just wanted somewhere he COULD WALK TO!

transparent evil.

Reality does indeed seem to hurt.

Excellent video PROOF of controlled demolition, star and flagged.

watchZEITGEISTnow

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Reality does indeed seem to hurt.

Excellent video PROOF of controlled demolition, star and flagged.

watchZEITGEISTnow

Thank you Zeitgeistnow.

Its funny, you dont need 1000 pages of scientific jargon to prove to obvious. Controlled demo.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts


Bottom line is this- I don't like it when people try to show me "proof" when it isn't proof. Go get some proof and I'll jump for joy, even if it disagrees with what I think happened. Just don't give me rehashed crap.




[edit on 16-1-2008 by Reality Hurts]

You are a man after my own heart reality and I too am of the same opinions regarding this tired old unsolved mystery. The video just above is one that looks edited also. This in addition to JREF debunkers going around to other forums like this posing as whacked out truthers to exascerbate an already injured reputation and credibility.

It is what has made any real chance of getting a REAL comprehensive impartial forensic investigation,,

an icecubes chance in hell.

- Con