The EVIDENCE is contained in the videos of the "collapse" events it is totally obvious from the "collapse" events that these were planned to happen exactly as they did, it was an intelligent design. Note that in the "collapse" of the towers, the downward wave of destruction accelerates, so how is it supposed to express the energy of the moving mass, without so much as slowing down? - - - Updated - - - You accept it as "fact" .... so be it, there is dissent here as to what exactly constitutes FACT. Fact is, WTC 1,2 & 7 were blown up.
So given say the video of a myth busters experiment where they show a rocket sled accelerating, and because its only a video of the rocket sled, its only a matter of opinion that the rocket sled did indeed accelerate?
The events have parallels in that what is observed is a physical object accelerating, and a video of the act is evidence that the object did indeed accelerate. the fact of acceleration of the falling mass in the case of the towers is damning evidence for controlled demolition.
Build yourself a sand castle with the same proportions as the WTC tower(s) and then drop a big rock right on top of it, Question, does the rock accelerate through the sand castle? How much resistance can be expected for the lower part of the tower, that is the part that was not on fire and didn't have anything crash into it ( except for that bit from above ) should the skyscraper be expected to perform as a house of cards?
The majority of "experts" that is people with advanced degrees & or lots of experience, are SILENT on this subject. There are a few, who are speaking out in favor of the Controlled Demolition explanation of events, and there are a few who oppose the CD version, however, this is a matter that doesn't require an "expert" it only requires thinking, a high school drop-out could get this.
Based on what genericBob? Your opinion? You have nothing to back this up. Nothing to support what you claim.
so the fact that the towers "collapsed" without showing any sign of energy transfer, that is no jolt to break-up & pulverize all that material. You see its so very simple, its kinda like the dog that didn't bark. its fundamental ..... and maybe that is why people gloss over it and ignore the obvious.
Where is your math/calculations and FEA model that shows there should be a jolt like you expect? Where is your math/calculations and FEA model that shows the structure should have resisted to provide that jolt? You are supporting your claim with NOTHING! You have been asked about the make-up of the pulverized material and won't answer those questions. If it's that fundamental, then you should be able to provide supporting evidence instead of "odds", "probability", and "it looks like a "controlled demolition".
You ask where is the evidence when the video that clearly shows no jolt is right in front of you and you still say "where is the evidence" its obvious. why don't you see it?
Describe what the 'jolt' should look like, and the please provide the physics of why a jolt should be seen. Show your evidence.
I am asking you to provide EVIDENCE that there should be a jolt as you expect? You expect their to be a jolt/slowing down when the plane impacts the facade. You expect there to be a jolt/slowing down when the upper section impacts the lower section. You have been provided a video of a jet smashing into a concrete block that shows no visible jolt or slowing down which goes against your claim above. As has been repeatedly explained to you, you just don't get to claim it without some form of proof. So again. Where is your proof that there SHOULD be a visible jolt/slowing down?
That video of the F4 being destroyed, is a sample size of ONE, in many other samples of collisions between physical objects, there is visible energy transfer in the form of a jolt, the idea that somehow you can use this ONE case to dictate what all collisions should look like is a farce. What we have here is the history of physics dating back to Newton, with observe collisions between physical objects behaving in a very specific way, and then you present this one video of an F4 being destroyed and it allegedly invalidates all that has gone before? There are other examples from Myth Busters to other science demos that clearly show the laws of motion in action. Just another bit about that F4 destruction video, note that the F4 was lined up perfectly perpendicular to the wall for this demo, however in the case of both "FLT11" and "FLT175" the aircraft could not possibly be totally perpendicular to the WTC wall. There would be huge asymmetrical forces on the aircraft, and still no visible breakage of the aircraft outside of the building?
Facts such as the "FLT175" aircraft could not possibly be expected to strike the WTC wall perfectly perpendicular to the face of the wall, and this doesn't require "math" to know..... There are a multitude of things about 9/11/2001 that do NOT require any sort of math at all to understand and arrive at the unmistakeable conclusion that something very much stinks about the whole Hijacked Airliners fiasco.
Argument from Incredulity. Do you have evidence: Physical, Forensic, Math, Physics ... anything other than "Nuh-UH!" to support your incredulity?
is it a fact ( or is it something that you are going to still argue about) that both "FLT11" and "FLT175" if indeed they were commercial airliners piloted by hijackers, could not possibly have struck the WTC tower wall(s) completely perpendicular to the face of the wall? and this fact is knowable without having to go & generate pages of numbers to justify that knowledge.
in other words only a closed mind will demand "proof" by way of pages of numbers that are really not necessary to prove this point.
