Or, crash test dummies. Falling 100 stories tends to be rough on crisis actors.
controlled demolition simply means CONTROLLED
it doesn’t have to follow the classic implosion model.
the fact that the towers ( both of them ) were completely and totally destroyed
and in a manner that had the collapse drop straight down through the path of most resistance is very telling about this whole scene, the fact that it was sold to the public as a “collapse” caused by the aircraft crash & fire, is one hell of a selling job
but hey… the Tell-Lie-Vision can sell ice makers to Eskimos …
The sidewalk was a hologram, hiding stacks of feather mattresses beneath.
Not if they’re using anti-gravity units brought in from Area 53.
So where did the demolition start from?
again a tangent
with no other purpose than to distract from the discussion of the physics of the events.
Just biding our time until it starts.
That is because you knowledge of physics could be written on a pinhead with a sledgehammer.
hard to say exactly in that people who were in the towers at the time heard explosions in the basement levels of the towers at the time there was allegedly an airliner impacting the upper floors. The official story is that the “collapse” event started at the point of the airplane crash area. and really, its again a tangent to the actual physics explanation of why it could only have been a controlled demolition.
the fact of the 64% of the acceleration of gravity for the descent of the towers, the symmetry and totality of the destruction, these are features of an event that had to have been engineered to happen as it did, this sort of thing is NOT an accident.
exactly what knowledge of physical science do you bring to the discussion?
can you express in detail what you believe is wrong with my arguments?
Yes. Every single point you think you’ve made is based on emotional paranoid garbage reasoning. Please start from the very beginning. One point at a time.
Obviously, IF the explosions actually occurred, they had nothing to do with the towers coming down.
Care to link to those accounts?
At the start of the thread, you referred to the alleged airplanes. Now they’re real.
You said the towers couldn’t collapse from the top and now you say there was a controlled demolition at the point of the aircraft impact and a collapse that you declared impossible.
The rest of us are discussing physics. You’re discussing fantasy.
Jay_Jay: On a different tangent, I’m curious about this–before you made this post, roughly what percent of responders did you feel would agree with your assertions from the beginning? What percentage of the opposition did you expect to be able to reason over to your side? Has this thread matched or confounded your expectations?
does anyone have ANY sort of documented eye witness statement at all?
where is the documentation?
Please cite examples of how the rest of you are discussing physics.
Beyond the news coverage? You’re actually denying that?
Anyway. Here: http://11-sept.org/survivors.html
Are you serious? You can’t fucking be arsed to read anyone’s posts?
I don’t harbor expectations about this sort of thing, its all
just take it as it comes, I will say that I’m disappointed in the
level of actual science in this discussion, if anybody has a problem with
a specific bit of the science argument that I have presented, please by
all means express it, however, what has happened is unfortunately
a degeneration into humor and tangents and unfounded accusations
about the lack of foundation in my arguments without citing specifics.
its a sick sad world!
Well, he used to be just “Jay”, if that’s any indication.