If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Fox covered this for their readers to ridicule liberals. Democrats and sane people don't believe this theory. This is similar to MSNBC and CNN's coverage of the "birthers". Liberals loved to talk about crazy Republicans that thought Obama wasn't born in America. The biased media at Fox and MSNBC love pointing out the crazies on the other side to affirm themselves and their viewers.
Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake - Napoleon Bonaparte
cant really say much other than that...if you actually read it and *understand* it then things will become clear.
i read it and still dont understand a couple of things, lets go over them shall we?
maybe you can help out an ignorant fellow.
nist tests on the steel recovered from the wtc towers show temps did not reach above 600o for more then a couple of mins, but in the models they used to show how the collapse happened, they used temps of 700o and above.
Conclusion
The laws of physics have never been violated. So if you propose a theory that requires violating the laws of physics you have a huge problem. Usually scientists would at best completely ignore such a theory but usually proponents of such theories are ridiculed mercilessly, unless of course it seems, if you are the US government. In science one observation that disagrees with the predictions of a theory means the theory is wrong. The official story regarding the 9/11 WTC tower collapses clearly violates two fundamental laws of physics. The theory that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition on the other hand does not violate the laws of physics. So which theory does science dictate we reject?
1. how much debris ended up outside the towers footprint?
notice the piece^^right above falling outside? it weighs tons. notice the volume of debris OUTSIDE the footprint?
the problem with the governments report and why we need a new investigation is this....
they want us to believe that the upper blocks fell onto the lower blocks, picking up their mass as the collapse goes along.
but we can see from pics during and after the collapse, that most mass was pulverized in midair, ejected out the side(pic above, plus i got tons more) and could not add mass to upper block.
so they want us to believe that(from all estimates)30-40% of the original mass collapsed the lower, undamaged, better built lower block.
but it gets worse, cause they also want to believe the falling mass did this while it was broke up. for those who dont know, a ton of falling material with a single point of contact will exert more force then 50 objects with a combined weight of a ton.
perfect example is this.
one guy has a 100 pound rock droped on his head, the other guy has 100 pounds of pea gravel droped on his head.
which one lives?
they also have not explained how 30% of the mass encountered little to no resistence from the lower block.
how all supports failed at the exact same time(on all 3 buildings) to ensure Symmetric collapse.
also, they have never given out the weight of the top floors, nor have they shared any of their model data so it can be tested by independent sources to verify.
something pretty much unheard of in the world of science.
a theory should be open to be tested by anyone, dont you agree?
btw wanted to let you also know it's against the law of conservation of energy when you state that the upper block disintergrated the lower block, pulverizing the concrete in mid-air and also shooting steel beams weighing tons up to 600 feet to the side.
we can see from pictures, concrete was being pulverized from the onset of collapse
notice the lower lighter colored concrete dust cloud in this photo.
also notice the tipping to the side, the only force acting on the supports in the damaged area is tension from being pulled to the side from the upper block tipping.
logic states that if the tipping is putting force on the supports, when they do give out, it would cause the upper block to tip over the side, not collapse str8 down.
something about a object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by outside forces?
i read it and still dont understand a couple of things, lets go over them shall we?
maybe you can help out an ignorant fellow.
nist tests on the steel recovered from the wtc towers show temps did not reach above 600o for more then a couple of mins, but in the models they used to show how the collapse happened, they used temps of 700o and above.
1. how much debris ended up outside the towers footprint?
notice the piece^^right above falling outside? it weighs tons. notice the volume of debris OUTSIDE the footprint?
the problem with the governments report and why we need a new investigation is this....
they want us to believe that the upper blocks fell onto the lower blocks, picking up their mass as the collapse goes along.
but we can see from pics during and after the collapse, that most mass was pulverized in midair, ejected out the side(pic above, plus i got tons more) and could not add mass to upper block.
so they want us to believe that(from all estimates)30-40% of the original mass collapsed the lower, undamaged, better built lower block.
but it gets worse, cause they also want to believe the falling mass did this while it was broke up. for those who dont know, a ton of falling material with a single point of contact will exert more force then 50 objects with a combined weight of a ton.
perfect example is this.
one guy has a 100 pound rock droped on his head, the other guy has 100 pounds of pea gravel droped on his head.
which one lives?
they also have not explained how 30% of the mass encountered little to no resistence from the lower block.
how all supports failed at the exact same time(on all 3 buildings) to ensure Symmetric collapse.
also, they have never given out the weight of the top floors, nor have they shared any of their model data so it can be tested by independent sources to verify.
something pretty much unheard of in the world of science.
a theory should be open to be tested by anyone, dont you agree?
btw wanted to let you also know it's against the law of conservation of energy when you state that the upper block disintergrated the lower block, pulverizing the concrete in mid-air and also shooting steel beams weighing tons up to 600 feet to the side.
we can see from pictures, concrete was being pulverized from the onset of collapse
notice the lower lighter colored concrete dust cloud in this photo.
also notice the tipping to the side, the only force acting on the supports in the damaged area is tension from being pulled to the side from the upper block tipping.
logic states that if the tipping is putting force on the supports, when they do give out, it would cause the upper block to tip over the side, not collapse str8 down.
something about a object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by outside forces?
ah, it must be nothing right?
Maybe we can get floridaorange's structural engineer friend to come on line and explain it
There are legitimate criticisms of the official 9-11 story, but this is not one of them. If this is representative of the level of intelligence that Sheen plans to employ in his "debate", then he should stick to topics he knows more about, such as bad sitcoms and prostitutes.
I agree with you Charlie Sheen is not the best person to bring this debate to the president. But Obama & Bush both stated they will not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories. Not tolerating something means doing something about it. Arguing about the messenger is pointless, its the message that's important.
i read it and still dont understand a couple of things, lets go over them shall we?
...ignorant shit removed...
unfortunately since this is an internet message board where people are anonymous and are free to act and troll w/o fear of repercussion this is not surprising. if you actually believe this, and chose not to believe not one of the 50 million people watching live tv that day, nor one of the thousands on the ground on nyc during the broad daylight when this was going on; being caused by planes flying into buildings, then there isn't much more to say as you are out of touch with reality and there is no sense talking anymore about the subject.
Coverup? Remeber the college douchbag who created the "Loose Change" video?
1. The man in the picture above is Dylan Avery. To be more precise, the fact that Dylan, his friends, and family are alive, is proof that "Loose Change" is bullshit. He, along with a couple of his friends, created a 9/11 conspiracy video claiming that the US government and the military caused 9/11. Take a closer look at the last part of that last sentence: he's claiming that the US government, for whatever ends, killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of more lives in the conflicts that ensued because of it.
2. Since Dylan's arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if his documentary is true, and we've established that the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people, then why wouldn't the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What's a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?
Coverup? Remeber the college douchbag who created the "Loose Change" video?
That is all
Someone posted this a few years ago. I really don't think this one needs explaining. This one is one of the poorest I've seen yet. It still make me laugh that anyone would use this as an example though.
...the main problem to many of you guys grasping that something stinks is the idea that the government just wouldn't do this...and its all in your history books.
TheIdiotsAREWinning.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."
Mark Twain
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
[/QUOTE]
Comment