Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

reply to post by Gonenuts


If you were talking a hermit that had always lived in the mountains maybe. However, Osama and his lieutenants are college educated engineers and doctors.....far from the ignorant sheep herders that you try to portray them as.

reply to post by Griff

I hope you guys take them a little more seriously now though?

I would love to say that yes, we take all exercises seriously now. But I am positive that would be a lie. For whatever reasons, there are still certain events that are considered as to be so unlikely that they are not taken as seriously as others. Just as the idea of terrorists hijacking airliners and using them on kamikaze missions was considered as not likely prior to 9/11. (or did everybody miss all the hearings afterward that said our national security policy was still too Cold War focused???)


As for gonenuts and his rants about multi trillon dollar...blab blah blah....all money appropriated for the Defense Department goes into different funds...and never do they mix. An example, many, many years ago I was with a helicopter squadron in Florida. It was a week from the end of the fiscal quarter and we were out of fly money (no money for fuel and parts), however, the base still had 80,000 to transplant palm trees for base beautification purposes. And thats how it works, when Congress passes the budget and the President signs it, the money is put into the different funds for different needs and it literally takes an act of Congress to move the money from one fund to the other.

We did not have an alert force worthy of the name on 9/11/01. We had what the politicians would let us have, and that wasnt nearly enough. And unfortunately, we have elected a government that promises to roll back the clock.

reply to post by esdad71


You must have me confused with someone else, as I merely (and politely) asked what that had to the towers. And again asked you to refute the physics and facts I presented with physics and facts that support your view.

Instead, you simply rant and divert.

Yes, there's lots of funny stuff about Flt 93, the most glaring of which is that in 2001, there was no known cell phone service for airliners, and the cell phones in use at that time couldn't have made the calls they purportedly did, as well as someone calling his mother and identifying himeself by his first AND last name. When was the last time you called your mom and said "Hi, mom, Joe Smith" here?

But that's a different thread.

So back to the towers: where's your physics and facts?

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by esdad71

 

You must have me confused with someone else, as I merely (and politely) asked what that had to the towers. And again asked you to refute the physics and facts I presented with physics and facts that support your view.

Instead, you simply rant and divert.

Yes, there's lots of funny stuff about Flt 93, the most glaring of which is that in 2001, there was no known cell phone service for airliners, and the cell phones in use at that time couldn't have made the calls they purportedly did, as well as someone calling his mother and identifying himeself by his first AND last name. When was the last time you called your mom and said "Hi, mom, Joe Smith" here?

But that's a different thread.

So back to the towers: where's your physics and facts?

First, cell phones had the ability to make phone calls in 2001.It is a FAA regulation that does not allow it. Take a second look at it.

Second, this post is about the 2 questions that were asked by the OP not cell phones or me explaining 10th grade physics.

I do not rant sir, not by a long shot. I am simply defending myself against those who do not wish to answer the OP questions and attempt to deflect.

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Are you suggesting that it should have followed what you have determined to be the "path of least resistance"? (The open air around the tower?)

What I have determined? What does that mean, you question that the air around the building is the 'path of least resistance'?

If it isn't then what do you think it is?

The top of WTC 2, YES, it should have continued to topple into open space (path of least resistance), dues to it's 'angular momentum', which cannot be stopped unless acted on by an external force. It's very basic physics. There was no external force that could have acted to cause the top to fall straight down. Even if the building at the pivot point of the top failed, the top would still have continued it's 'angular momentum'. The only way it could have done what it did was if the whole building symmetrically failed underneath it faster than the top was tilting. How did that happen when only the tilting portion was subjected to fire and aircraft damage. It had thousands of tons of undamaged structure holding it up, just as it had done since it was built.

So when the top started falling straight down, it is because the resistance was taken away from underneath it. No one has yet explained how that happened.

When it comes down to it the buildings, all 3, should NOT have collapsed at all. There is nothing that suggests they should have collapsed from asymmetrical damage and sporadic office fires.

Originally posted by esdad71
....or me explaining 10th grade physics.

Haha esdad c'mon, it's obvious from this thread alone you wouldn't know 10th grade physics if it slapped you, let alone you explaining it lol.

Explain angular momentum, conservation of momentum, friction/resistance etc, then put all that in context with the towers collapses. Explain how those laws seemed to have taken a day off on 9/11.

Something we've been trying to get you to do since the beginning.

reply to post by esdad71


why dont you tell us what happend, since all of us are wrong all evidence presented here is wrong in your mind.

("2. WHERE is the evidence of explosives? I don't care if you used a top secret explosive...there would be residue or at least one relay/switch/terminal that would have assisted with the explosion. However, there is nothing.")

why dont you tell us the thermodynamics and physics of why there wasnt explosives

with factual info about flame temps ,steel melting temps, diagrams from of the building blue prints ,scientist and physics profesers that back up why u believe there wasnt any other energy source for to take WTC7 down

if we are all wrong you have to have a treasure trove of info on the whole WTC destruction at your disposale

show us so we can believe also that it just fell from fire






[edit on 16-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

reply to post by lycopersicum

why dont you tell us what happend, since all of us are wrong all evidence presented here is wrong in your mind.

Answer to that question is, he knows all! He is the brainchild of Albert Einstein, he is above all of us, he is truth! He has been giving us all the true evidences. His word alone is enough, this wonderful person would not tell you a lie, and would not mislead you in anyway. He has giving you the facts, he has given you, NIST the government bible of truth. It was written perfectly by the greatest minds that this great country has to offer. This great individual does no wrong, that is why he is here telling you his truth.
What I do not understand is why he has not written a book because all those other authors out there are all wrong. All those scientist who found thermite, and thermate, are wrong and he has the real proof to show us all, and I am still waiting with such delight.

("2. WHERE is the evidence of explosives? I don't care if you used a top secret explosive...there would be residue or at least one relay/switch/terminal that would have assisted with the explosion. However, there is nothing.")

why dont you tell us the thermodynamics and physics of why there wasnt explosives

Oh goody I cannot wait, I am eager to here his truth, I am sure he will be presenting us facts with science to support his finding.

with factual info about flame temps ,steel melting temps, diagrams from of the building blue prints ,scientist and physics profesers that back up why u believe there wasnt any other energy source for to take WTC7 down

if we are all wrong you have to have a treasure trove of info on the whole WTC destruction at your disposale

show us so we can believe also that it just fell from fire

I too am waiting for his wonderful presentation; I have been searching seven years for the truth about 911. All those web sites where wrong. All those videos are fake. All those firemen that claim they saw and heard explosion are lairs. All those first responders who talk the Press, and FBI, are lairs. All of our science is all wrong, those war games have “never” been practices before, and NORAD has let us down numerous times, when planes fly off course. The 911 Commission wrote the truth and was able to prove bin Ladin did 911. But, the FBI forgot to charge him for the crimes, and I think they will be charging him one day soon (we are still waiting.) The terrorist are who the government say they are, because they have the proof. The proof came from airplanes that impact at high rate of speed in the WTC, and the Pentagon, that exploded in to a ball of flames, and disintegrated to nothing. DNA proves that, because the government has this new supper, duper, computer, which can do DNA on all dust particles that, was found in the “tons” of debris at ground zero. Also any one can take a few course in flying a silly little Cessna and then jump in a Boeing airliner and fly it as well as any top gun pilot. And my God we all know when buildings just fall down all the concrete just disintegrates into thin air.
We all know that President Bush has never lied to the American people and we all know that our government does not lie to us, and the truth is about WMD, they found it, everywhere. they just did not want us to know though. So I am waiting for this man to present his wonderful finding with the greatest Science know to man.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Are you suggesting that it should have followed what you have determined to be the "path of least resistance"? (The open air around the tower?)

What I have determined? What does that mean, you question that the air around the building is the 'path of least resistance'?

If it isn't then what do you think it is?

There is less resistance to falling in open air than there is to falling inside a building...but that doesn't mean that a falling object will always seek out a path with less resistance.

Originally posted by ANOK
The top of WTC 2, YES, it should have continued to topple into open space (path of least resistance), dues to it's 'angular momentum', which cannot be stopped unless acted on by an external force.

The building beneath it was applying an external force.

Originally posted by ANOKSo when the top started falling straight down, it is because the resistance was taken away from underneath it. No one has yet explained how that happened.

An object doesn't have to have zero resistance to fall straight down.


There are other points in your post that I'm delaying a response to because I want to settle the physics issue first.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

If you were talking a hermit that had always lived in the mountains maybe. However, Osama and his lieutenants are college educated engineers and doctors.....far from the ignorant sheep herders that you try to portray them as.

We are not talking about the sheep hearders are we though, we are talking about (Osama) it is he who is being blamed.

Now, for Osama lieutenants, being college educated engineers, and doctors, can you please prove that by siteing your sources, or are you just throwing your “opinions” around as facts as usual.

reply to post by Gonenuts


me too i cant wait to see his info so i can post it on all the 9/11 sites and tell everyone this is from the only guy who knows the truth

im sure they will appreciate it very much since their 7 years of research is all wrong

but hell who are we ?? the blind leading the blind

so esdad71 please enlighten us with all your factual info pleas there are thousands of us waiting



[edit on 16-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

Osama is also a CIA TACTICIAN INCASE YOU DIDNT KNOW.


Also, let me congradulate you for believing in the OBVIOUS!!!!

A cop just came forward and ADMITTED to there being controlled explosives in WTC7.

ALSO, incase you didn't know, A 3.5 EARTHQUAKE GENERATED BY THE COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS IS NOT ENOUGH TO BRING DOWN A BUILDING IN CONSTRUCTION.

Thank you, come again.

Originally posted by adam_zapple
There is less resistance to falling in open air than there is to falling inside a building...but that doesn't mean that a falling object will always seek out a path with less resistance.

C'mon in who's world?

In physics, the path of least resistance is always taken by objects moving through a system

Source

The building beneath it was applying an external force.

Haha good try, but sorry you fail. Please explain what external force the building would apply that would cause the top to change it's momentum?

Other than dropping away, as I already explained...If that is the external force you're talking about then OK you're correct, now tell me how that lower undamaged structure managed to collapse independent of the top? Remember the 'official story' relise on that top section falling onto lower floors due to ....er thermal expansion or something...rotf...

An object doesn't have to have zero resistance to fall straight down.

I never said it did, what's your point?

Explain in what situation an object cab fall through itself with no resistance, using real physics references please?

There are other points in your post that I'm delaying a response to because I want to settle the physics issue first.

Yes you need to settle those physics issues. You could start here...

zebu.uoregon.edu...

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

As for gonenuts and his rants about multi trillon dollar...blab blah blah....all money appropriated for the Defense Department goes into different funds...and never do they mix. An example, many, many years ago I was with a helicopter squadron in Florida. It was a week from the end of the fiscal quarter and we were out of fly money (no money for fuel and parts), however, the base still had 80,000 to transplant palm trees for base beautification purposes. And thats how it works, when Congress passes the budget and the President signs it, the money is put into the different funds for different needs and it literally takes an act of Congress to move the money from one fund to the other.

You do not know where the money for the Defense Department goes even Rumsfeld, could *not* account for over two billon dollars that was missing the day before 911 happened You do not know where the money goes, who is handling the money You are not the governments auditor. The government cant handle running a country because it is too busy covering its behind, do to all the corruption.

reply to post by Revolution-2012

A cop just came forward and ADMITTED to there being controlled explosives in WTC7.

I am not saying I doubt it, but can you please give me more info, or a link to a source to your statement thank you.

if every one would just pause for a few moments and not worry about what we all think

esdad71 was about to set us all strait with his factual and enlightening info

for all of us to read

so please just let him respond do not worry about what u think he will truely set us all free and i truely want to be freee so...

ESDAD71 where are bro i cant wait

reply to post by Gonenuts


Erm. It was on here yesterday, might of got removed?

It should be on the forum with a title something like,

"Cop admits to controlled demolitions in WTC7"

AHA.
www.70news.com...

be enlightened.

reply to post by Revolution-2012



we saw your last post but dont worry friend

ESDAD71 will tell us exactly whats up with osama in a few min just hold on to your pants

ESDAD71 where are with your mind freeing info

for all of us to read

...guys...hate to interupt for a second...first, I for one am...was...a real sceptic about this stuff until ATS...not the point...but I just got off the phone with my brother and he thinks I am a...lets say "nut" not the words used. But he agreed to look at or read one source about this 9/11 stuff with the agreement that I would never bring up this or UFO's again....so please...you guys know this topic...give me the one best place you can think of to convince him, or compel him to look into this further....I have one chance to make him a believer or to get him hooked on learning more.....so obviously this is not addressed to debunkers.....he won't touch ATS so that is out.
....sorry for the interuption.........and thanks