9/11 Coverup (3703 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.08 on 200 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Williamson: "Fucking Bush" Both anger and happy memories. (View user info) at 2006-01-04 06:01:27 EST
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745&q=9%2F11
Yeah, yeah. Posting a link. I know, -2Die and whatnot. I haven't posted in a while and I thought this was postworthy.
It's a 59 minute movie on google video. Might I suggest Cable Internet if you plan to watch it. It's a compilation of hundreds of facts that just don't add up to the official story.
Yes it's a "conspiracy". No, I don't believe in crop-circles. No, I don't believe Elvis is still around. But to believe that absolutely no Conspiracy Theories are right is to believe that noone is Conspiring.
Just watch the movie - I don't want to make this a for-conspiracy/anti-conspiracy post, I just want to show you guys hundreds of facts involving 9/11 that you will never hear in the media. Watch it for the facts - not the conclusions!
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event; like a new Pearl Harbor." - PNAC
User Reviews
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-15 06:20:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why the hell does ETS alwasy disappear when I destroy his arguments?
(rhetorical)
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-13 23:24:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DeadHorse (user info) at 2006-06-13 22:58:58 (#)
Ranking: -2
Wow.
Welcome to five years ago.
------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the brave new world.
Submitted by DeadHorse (user info) at 2006-06-13 22:58:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Wow.
Welcome to five years ago.
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-13 22:08:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oops, gave you a zero in my haste to post.
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-13 22:08:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-06-13 19:38:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Al-Qaeda admits the fact they did the deed...ignore it!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/13/911.hijacker/ 20th hijacker? Ignored.
That's funny I could've swore I seen Osama denying 911:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/09/12/binladen-happy.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
http://www.pbs.org/flashpointsusa/20040629/infocus/topic_01/timeline_sep2001.html
Have you actually watched the "confession" of Osama admitting to 911. It looks NOTHING like him!
http://911blimp.net/images/fake_osama_comparo1.jpg
Even the FBI admits it has nothing:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
Please note that it does not list 911 as one of his crimes.
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2006-06-13 21:28:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Dude Stabkill, get with it. Fucking EVERYONE knows that the entirety of Al-Qaeda are paid actors, in fact they are filming their tapes in the mountain ranges of America as we speak! Actually, we have been paying Islamic Jihadists for many decades now, but it was only recently that we could enact our master plan to plunge the country into financial ruin! (Temporarily, anyway.) Rack up federal debt! Raise the interest rates! Up the gas price! Kill some soldiers! The plan is going PERFECTLY!
dumbass. this is not directed towards you, stabkill.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-06-13 19:38:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The government is horribly incompetent...incapable of performing in Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq. Yet, somehow, managed one of the biggest cover-ups of all time that would require the undying support (to the death...for real) of many, many individuals. In this day and age of the internet and constant leaks to the press of information, you would think SOMEONE would leak details and names of a secret operation.
The fact that someone came up with plan "A" forty years ago doesn't make it so that plan "a" HAD to be inacted by the Bush administration a mere 8 months into office.
To believe this conspiracy theory, you have to disbelieve a HELL OF A LOT OF information... Enough stuff to make you an idiot, quite frankly.
Al-Qaeda admits the fact they did the deed...ignore it!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/13/911.hijacker/ 20th hijacker? Ignored.
The victims of the aircraft do not exist in many of these idiot's minds. I suppose an interview on the whereabouts of 2000 people by going to their families would come up with stories of recent phone calls and pictures from a tropical island?
EVERY SINGLE PERSON who believes this conspiracy theory is a fucking crackpot kook.
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2006-06-13 19:15:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
HOGWASH.
boy, if we're still talking about Pearl Harbor conspiracies now, an event which led to a war which was for the most part supported by the Americans, I can just imagine in three or four centuries when shitwads like you are STILL debating this. next we'll have some cockamanie theory about aliens with little green penises blowing their load beneath the towers causing structural instability leading to the inevitable downfall...AND THE GOVERNMENT KNEW THE WHOLE TIME! it was just an effort to maintain INTERGALACTIC PEACE.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-06-13 17:45:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:58:06 (#)
Ranking: 2
You're all totally missing the point. I can only surmise you're doing it on purpose as I don't believe anyone can possibly be this fucking stupid.
If the floors offer ANY RESISTENCE AT ALL, (as they are BOUND to do by the laws of physics), they will cause some time lag. What the people in that video are suggesting is that, because the buildings collapse at the same rate as they would if falling through only air, there is no resistence being posed by the floors; therefore the "pancaking" theory cannot be true because "pancaking" requires force, which requires transfer of energy, which causes slowdown. The only other explanation is that the floors' resistence was removed beforehand possibly by explosives.
Whatever. I'm done with this argument.
------------------
how can you tell when exactly the floor below is beginning to collapse? my guess is the inside is collapsing first, meaning you can't fucking tell.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-13 11:45:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Whoa...
Molari, I can't believe you're actually implying that the planes were autopiloted into the buildings. Have you ever even been in the cockpit of a jetliner? Are you aware of how intentionally slow autopilot adjustments to the flight path of jumbo jets are? Have you ever played Flight Simulator? You can easily fly a jetliner into a building in any of the top-quality (read: ailine-sanctioned) simulators out there. That is, aside from the ones that changed their software to disallow polygonal collisions with buildings.
And you're incorrect about the planes' attitude at impact. One impact was at near 0 attitude, meaning the plane was essentially level. The other plane was flying at near 0 attitude on approach, and took a hard adjustment moments before impact, hitting the building at around a 20 degree skew. If the autopilot was used, since you could take human error out of the equation, the best technique (and one easily achievable by means of autopilot and GPS) would be to come in at a high angle of attack followed by a hard rudder roll seconds before impact. If they were not just amateur pilots with a bent for self-destruction, that approach would've resulted in maximizing the damage.
Furthermore, a GPS-guided autopilot would've been able to cetralize the impact directly into the core structure of the building, possibly causing a catastrophic structural failure within seconds. Example: the second plane impact did more damage to the core structure and that building collapsed first. The amount of energy tranferred into the buildings at impact caused them to sway violently. If the central core had been severed in the initial impact, when the building tried to return to its natural state (90-degrees vertical) the collapse quite possibly would've started immediately. You can actually demostrate that effect with a tower built from Legos. What I'm saying is that if they were autopiloted into the buildings to maximize damage, then the conspiracy theorists would be out of gas on their explosive demolition theories, as there would've been no need for them. If the whole event had been orchestrated to that degree, the loss of life that day would've been staggeringly higher. As is, it looks like some wannabe pilots did a mediocre job. That may sound harsh, but a carefully orchestrated event would've at the very least been much more efficient.
Lastly, that wouldn't explain why the Pentagon impact was so sloppy. That plane impacted the ground before the building itself and at a heavy attitude. On a structure such as that, damage would've been maximized by a 0 attitude approach. You're moving into a whole different realm of precision there, as the Pentagon is not 100 stories tall.
No offense, but that's the most absurd theory I've heard in awhile. I don't know what pilots you overheard, but I'd seriously question their speculations and/or credentials. Or at least ask them if they ever flown a plane into a building before. ;)
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-06-13 11:26:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Frankly there are far too many unknowns for any one person, expert or not, to be able to draw any conclusions from anything.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-13 11:21:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There are a few people on Uber who have used Thermite, but no-one you'll of heard of, some guy popped up about it last time we discussed this. Guess who he sided with.
Wait was that a complement? Woot.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-06-13 11:11:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Now is possibly the worst time in the year for me to be drawn into any form of debate.
I will return this time Thursday. Please stay where you are until then.
Submitted by lossy (user info) at 2006-06-13 11:10:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
someone should "cover up" your nose and mouth for about 5 minutes!
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-06-13 11:08:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Remove DCWoody from the 'no-one here' part of that statement, though that changes nothing considering there are people more knowledgeable than him that can be quoted on both sides of the debate.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-06-13 11:07:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Molari (user info) at 2006-06-13 11:00:43 (#)
Ranking: 2
I've heard trained airline pilots say its almost impossible to fly a airliner into a building, much less at a near vertical banking angle so as to maximize damage on multiple floors, the way they did. So there is no way in hell 19 guys who practiced on farming aircraft for a few months could manage that. The only possible way to create that situation would be to program the autopilot to do it with the assistance of the aircraft's fly-by-wire and GPS systems. And who has the resources to do that?
------------------
What the hell kind of government has the resources to keep quiet so many people who would be aware of this 'fact' if it were true?
Please tell me you don't honestly believe that.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-13 11:05:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeheah, if by most people outside the US you actually mean ETS on holiday.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-06-13 11:04:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
My two cents:
All my reasons for believing that 9/11 was not a government-planned conspiracy are circumstantial. That is the only sort of argument I believe is credible in this arena, given that speculation doesn't require expert training. I'm not discounting 100% that conspiracy could be a possibility, but it just strikes me as a waste of energy to devote so much time to arguing about technical issues no-one here will ever be moderately well-versed in.
ETS, if you had ever proved anything the relevant parties would have swooped on you long ago.
Submitted by Molari (user info) at 2006-06-13 11:00:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Most people outside the U.S. agree the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11 to get unprecidented power with their public, and the right to do whatever it wants internationally. Anyone questions you on anything, just play the 9/11 card.
I've heard trained airline pilots say its almost impossible to fly a airliner into a building, much less at a near vertical banking angle so as to maximize damage on multiple floors, the way they did. So there is no way in hell 19 guys who practiced on farming aircraft for a few months could manage that. The only possible way to create that situation would be to program the autopilot to do it with the assistance of the aircraft's fly-by-wire and GPS systems. And who has the resources to do that?
Despite all this, nothing can be done to stop the Bush administration by any other country. The world's only hope is the U.S.'s own public itself.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-13 10:49:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-06-13 07:05:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
PPS. I feel reminded of 1984 everytime someone says WTC7 fell naturally... 2+2 is 4 damnit, even if the party says 2+2 is 5... I simply cannot look at that building fall and say "Yep, that was natural". I just can't say "2+2=5 and we've always been at war with Eurasia (Usama)."
-------------------------------------------------
Sorry Williamson do you think it was blown up because you only look at one side of the building when it was burning? Or is it because of an off handed comment by silverstein. Do you really think he is that dumb? Do you really think that a property owner recalling a conversation he had with the firechief about firemen would would somehow slip into demolition expert lingo? Before 9/11 did you ever hear someone use the term "pull it" up mean blow up a building, but now it is an irrefutable fact that it is what Silverstein must have meant?
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-13 10:36:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And a quick point people. Even if we did discover that building 7 had explosives, it still does nothing to prove a case against the government. What if it was a back up plan for those crazy terrorists? You know, the dicks flying the planes. But it's pointless...
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-13 07:29:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
cmon ETS...get outta bed already you lazy bastard.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-06-13 07:14:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
seriously, the government can't keep anything secret.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-06-13 07:14:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I dunno.
The government didn't set up charges and blow the thing up though.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-06-13 07:13:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-06-13 06:13:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-06-13 04:33:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
whats the point of totally collapsing WTC artificially after you already flew two planes into it?
What's the difference between 2000 killed and 3000 killed?
=--==-=-=--==-=-==-=-==-
A scar. More physical damage. More fear.
Also, I'd have to say the casualties would probably have been a bigger jump than 1000 from pre-fall to post-fall.
======================
probably.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-13 07:09:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
See I don't get that...what is it about watching the fall that you don't beleive? And if you want to see seismographs of builings falling naturally as opposed to via explosives there are two in the post I linked to.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-06-13 07:05:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-13 06:36:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah...the thing is Willy...
1) the whole 100ft up tihng is rubbish considering you contend that they knowcked out every floor so some would be at most 10 foot up.
2) I'm not really going to be bothered to teach you all that shit, you can trust me, but I'd be surprised if you did.
The point is that even if you think I may not know enough about this, there are many seismic traces for that day and a seismologist would have come forward if explosives had been used and said so. There is no way the US govt could have been controlling all those devices, lots of people keep them in their basement, especially in america.
=-=--==-=-=--==-=-=--=
Out of my own interest I'd be interested in seeing the seismographs of different building collapses (both natural and demolished) as comparison. I've been looking for a site but am having no luck. Besides that I've got to go have a shower, go out and buy some drinks, cook dinner, and entertain company for the night... female company... hot japanese 27year old female company... seismographs aren't on my priorities list tonight, but if someone else knows a site, I'd like to know of it. Later.
PS. I just realised that said hot female japanese company is probably pissed at me cause the Aussies beat her stupid country in Soccer. Le sigh.
PPS. I feel reminded of 1984 everytime someone says WTC7 fell naturally... 2+2 is 4 damnit, even if the party says 2+2 is 5... I simply cannot look at that building fall and say "Yep, that was natural". I just can't say "2+2=5 and we've always been at war with Eurasia (Usama)."
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-06-13 06:42:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-01-05 08:12:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
It sounds like I might have to watch this. I trust ETS' instincts. God knows why.
-------------------------
Bloody hell. I take that back.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-13 06:36:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah...the thing is Willy...
1) the whole 100ft up tihng is rubbish considering you contend that they knowcked out every floor so some would be at most 10 foot up.
2) I'm not really going to be bothered to teach you all that shit, you can trust me, but I'd be surprised if you did.
The point is that even if you think I may not know enough about this, there are many seismic traces for that day and a seismologist would have come forward if explosives had been used and said so. There is no way the US govt could have been controlling all those devices, lots of people keep them in their basement, especially in america.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-06-13 06:27:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-13 06:14:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
Williamson go to this post.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85978
Remember? There is similar data for Building 7. The theory on building 7 is the weakest because you can't say thermite.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I have been to that post. I have seen that evidence, and like any good interesting point that's presented well (despite what conclusion it points to), I +2'ed it.
I think I also asked a few things such as how reactive are seismographs to explosions *within* a building (not based on the ground). How much energy is translated into the ground from centralised explosions 40 stories up? And to that point, how do explosions designed to slice (they don't *have to* knock out a column, they can split it diagonally) support columns a hundred yards up, register a wave that runs through the entire building (through numerous paths) then through the earth, across the second busiest city in the world (and on an island mind you), reach a seismograph as distinctly clear (and non white-wash) reading?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-13 06:14:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Williamson go to this post.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85978
Remember? There is similar data for Building 7. The theory on building 7 is the weakest because you can't say thermite.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-06-13 06:13:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-06-13 04:33:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
whats the point of totally collapsing WTC artificially after you already flew two planes into it?
What's the difference between 2000 killed and 3000 killed?
=--==-=-=--==-=-==-=-==-
A scar. More physical damage. More fear.
Also, I'd have to say the casualties would probably have been a bigger jump than 1000 from pre-fall to post-fall.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-06-13 06:07:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What's this doing back on most heated damnit?
I'd just like to make a point quickly... Why all the bickering and argueing about the Towers? Why all the physics arguements on the two tall buildings?
WTC7 is where the strength in the demolitions theory lies. The fact that WTC7 like that shows (to my understanding and the understanding of physicists worldwide) that that building had demolition charges to knock it down like that. The way that thing fell down it could have been made of cardboard and still stood a better chance against that fire (fire has never ever caused a steel structure to fall [with the exception of the 2 Towers depending on what you believe]).
The fact WTC7 fell like that is proof that AT LEAST WTC7 was knocked down with demolitions. I can see both sides to the physics story when hearing about the towers, however WTC7 is like looking at a man with stab wounds and getting told he was shot. Fucking bullshit.
If you can prove WTC7 was knocked down with charges than that proves that there was prior knowledge (to set up and plan these charges). Ater you've shown that WTC7 was demolished, then you can come to the conclusion that the governments charged the Towers as well; and even if they didn't, they are already guilty enough by being accessories before the fact to be hung.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-06-13 04:33:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
whats the point of totally collapsing WTC artificially after you already flew two planes into it?
What's the difference between 2000 killed and 3000 killed?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-13 04:17:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think my VACUUM VACUUUM VCAUUUM comment still stands.
Explain it ETS. PLease? I'm bored.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-12 21:19:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Seriously? Black Holes? I hope you're just playing around.
Fact is, you are spreading hate against the goverment with far-fetched opinions, random facts and lies. Not unlike the goverment themselves. In essence, you are no better than the assholes you are unfairly attacking.
So, come back when you figure out how to have real dialog that's respectful, unbiased and fair.
Yeah, I know I've been fucking around here too, but I'm just a stupid fucking n00b. What do I know?
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-12 21:00:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 20:46:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-12 18:27:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, sorry about that Silver Wolf.
Yeah, I know that a penny has a poor aerodynamic shape, and that it would never go into the ground.
Hell, even if it was perfectly aerodynamic it still wouldn't go into the concrete. I think the onl way to accomplish that would be to fire it from a gun at point blank range. The acceleration due to gravity will never get a mass that small moving that fast.
---------------
Sure it could, without air resistence. Throw one into a black hole sometime and see how fast it goes. ;)
Say what you mean...mean what you say.
---------------
If the World Trade Center was on a black hole it would have no trouble falling in less than 10 seconds. So, I must be right then huh...
Oh wait? We're talking about Earth? Ohhhhh.....
Then why the fuck are you bringing up partially theoretical physics that have absolutely nothing with "Real World"/ Earth Relted conditions?
Assshat
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 20:46:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-12 18:27:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, sorry about that Silver Wolf.
Yeah, I know that a penny has a poor aerodynamic shape, and that it would never go into the ground.
Hell, even if it was perfectly aerodynamic it still wouldn't go into the concrete. I think the onl way to accomplish that would be to fire it from a gun at point blank range. The acceleration due to gravity will never get a mass that small moving that fast.
---------------
Sure it could, without air resistence. Throw one into a black hole sometime and see how fast it goes. ;)
Say what you mean...mean what you say.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-06-12 20:13:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-12 18:27:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, sorry about that Silver Wolf.
Yeah, I know that a penny has a poor aerodynamic shape, and that it would never go into the ground.
Hell, even if it was perfectly aerodynamic it still wouldn't go into the concrete. I think the onl way to accomplish that would be to fire it from a gun at point blank range. The acceleration due to gravity will never get a mass that small moving that fast.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-06-12 13:22:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
GET THE FUCK OVER IT
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-12 13:18:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 12:46:30 (#)
Ranking: 2
Point taken. I agree that it doesn't need to be sensationalized, but it's difficult not to get emotional about it when no one will listen."""
>> You can't force people to listen. And if you do so it's counter-productive.
(And don't try to tell me people are listening, because they aren't. They do the same thing you have done. They shout, "shut up you conspiracy theorist whackjob!") """`
>> Not true, there is a sizable movement of people who have become suspicious of the official version. Large enough to be heard in your and even our media. Problem is that it looks radicalized by idiots like Alex Jones who sees government intrusion everywhere. My problem with you is not WHAT you're putting but HOW you do so. Getting emotional and claiming intellectual high grounds will get you absolutely nowhere.
Surely you can understand the frustration there. That's why I started out just asking that people watch the videos. Go back and see for yourself. """
>> No true either. You got frustrated when people started questionning the videos and arguing against them. You didn't have too. You only had to share them. After all, you didn't need anyone to hold your hand and tell you what to interpret when you watch them, no? Truth is, you let your pride get in the way and this is the main reason me, and a number of people, will not listen to you because you are condescendant and prideful and just plain uncapable to respect dissent. Biggots have no place in serious debates.
Then people started calling me everything in the book. Striking back wasn't the right thing to do, but I'm human.
>> You have a serious marty complex too, another reason why people despise you. You're actually pretending that you just shared the videos and were attacked so much that you were forced into snapping. But again, that's not true. If you had let go of your pride for a minute, all you would've gotten for negative rating is a few "-2 No Comment" and such harmless Internet. Instead, you went forward and start calling everyone stupid and idiots and walking zombies and whatnot. Say what you want but this isn't how you gain creidibility. The only thing you are a victim of here is is yourself.
I get upset when people won't listen to reason."""
>> Babies also get upset when you don't do what they want. Perhaps it's time you grow past that phase and accept diverging opinons, however retarded they may sound to you. You may see yourself in a positive light, but I assure you Brad, you look everything like a close-minded arrogant little biggot to everybody else.
You have little control over your emotions, your social maturity seems to be lacking and you have wasted little credibility you had. With that in mind, if you are so sensitive to this cause and this is not only about your ego, wouldn't be better if you let "normal" people take care of this and resort to pasting links without engaging in debates that you will inevitably turn into a mess and make people associate your theory with weirdos/you?
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-12 13:15:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Nephilim: it was I who stated the fact about the aerodynamics of a penny, not Brad; his reply was tongue-in-cheek. If you'd care to review: http://www.ubersite.com/m/81849#2017050
If you try to refute this, I'll be forced to believe that you're one of those "a penny dropped from the Empire State building will go completely through a person standing on the ground"-type pseudo-physicists.
Granted, I was only trying to pick an old scientific scab in the name of accuracy.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-12 13:01:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I believe the official story on WTC7 is ignorant and misinformed, rather than a feeble attempt at a coverup.
While you are correct in that explosions do create a vacuum-similar environment, the effect is only momentary as the weight of the atmosphere quickly overcomes the explosive force (it's what keeps the shockwave of an explosion from continuing indefinitely). Controlled demolition is ALWAYS done by sequential charges, not one large explosion, hence the term "controlled". Even with the use of one large explosion (completely dismissing the insane amount of collateral damage that would occur and the impossibility of covering it up)(also, check out all the collateral damage and how far away things were destroyed in the '92 Murrah building explosion), Therefore, it is impossible to have a freefall[TV] scenario when dealing with a collapsing structure that is anchored to the ground. Conversely, it is impossible to create a TV scenario with use of explosives, sequential or not, because the explosion itself is enough to temporarily overcome gravitional force, launching debris in multiple directions.
The point is that their software is at the very least terribly flawed and inaccurate and at the worst simply incomplete. One of the the very few ways the buiding could fall in a TV situation is complete and total separation of molecular bonds in zero atmosphere with constant gravity (which has also been hypothesized to be anything but constant). Another way would be for the complete foundation to be instantaneously removed (not possible with explosive demolition) from under the structure (akin to dropping the building from a suspended height) under those same atmospheric and gravitational conditions. They assume terminal velocity is achieved almost instantaneously when a variable of zero is used for atmosphere. Bad science is bad science, no matter how it's dissected.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-12 13:01:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
can't talk watchingfootabll I just poped in to stay that VACUUVACUUM VACUUUM what the fuck are you talking about how did the goverment create a hug building sized vacuum?
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 12:46:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:39:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
You want answers on 9/11? Fine. I agree with you, in fact. But stop telling everyone to wake the fuck up because the government did it when YOU. DO. NOT. KNOW. Stop speculating. You do more harm than good. Weirdos like you and Alex Jones have hijacked a perfectly legetimate cause and turned it into a fucking circus about skulls&bones and the new world order and god knows what.
----------------
Point taken. I agree that it doesn't need to be sensationalized, but it's difficult not to get emotional about it when no one will listen.
(And don't try to tell me people are listening, because they aren't. They do the same thing you have done. They shout, "shut up you conspiracy theorist whackjob!")
Surely you can understand the frustration there. That's why I started out just asking that people watch the videos. Go back and see for yourself.
Then people started calling me everything in the book. Striking back wasn't the right thing to do, but I'm human. I get upset when people won't listen to reason.
Even speculation is healthy when it is couched in some reason which can be supported or refuted with evidence. It's all part of the larger debate. One of the first things people want to know is, "why would they do such a thing".
How many times have you asked that very question and I said, "I don't want to speculate on their reasoning"?
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 12:40:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-12 12:29:22 (#)
Ranking: -2
Vegence, did you actually just point out that a penny has a less aerodynamic shape and tell me to not ignore variour variables? You're right, but why don't you try that with your fucking videos? You and you other hipocrates are pointinp out small anomalies and ignoring the possibility that they could be easily explained by unnamed variables. Fucking douche.
----------------
Dude...what the HELL are you talking about!?!?
Tell you what...why don't you try picking something specific to attack?
And what does 'less aerodynamic shape' mean? Compared to what?
What grade are you in anyway? Here's a word of advice: don't ever join the debate team.
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 12:36:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:39:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
Ah mon choux...you're exactly the reason why America is polarized.
In most countries, debates take place in a calm and sane environment whereas in the U.S. you have one side which plays the galvanizing patriotic card and another side, which you are part of, that would rather look like lunatics than capitalize on their political opponents fuck ups.
Whether you're from the right, left, centre, up, down, whatever...this kind of melodrama is useless.
-------------------
This isn't about 'capitalizing on political fuck ups' or 'winning elections', Caul. This is about wanting to know the TRUTH. That is it.
You criticize America's galvanized political atmosphere yet you, yourself, are quite swift to choose sides in any debate on this website whether it concerns you directly or not, and you aren't even an American!
What you're forgetting about this country is it's sheer size and diversity of democraphics. You can travel and see just about every type of people from all corners of the globe in this country. We have a long and violent history racked with racism, genocide, slavery, and even a civil war. Our national identity is not as readily distinguishable as most countries. It's like trying to get the whole of Europe to agree on something. It's just not gonna happen.
But that's fine with me. Political debate is one thing... We're talking about something altogether different here. FUCK MAN, we're talking about the possibility that our own president and military brass, the people charged with protecting us, instead murdered 3000 of us in one day! Anyone who can debate that in an emotional vacuum isn't a human fucking being.
Even your spiritual motherland, France, has had more than its fair share of political unrest. In fact, I'll tell you what, open a history book and show me one country without a war in its past. For bonus points, show me one European country without a war in its past. I'll suck your cock if you can, how's that?
The very nature of the questions discussed in these videos prohibit 'reasoned debate' in a society where the mainstream media has simply dismissed our arguments as 'wild conspiracy theories' right in chorus with George W. Bush, himself, who said on TV: "we musn't pay attention to wild conspiracy theories."
There is no way to have a 'reasoned debate' in an atmosphere of unequivocal dismissal, ridicule, or even questioning of one's patriotism.
The fact of the matter is, the government hasn't addressed many of these questions posed by these videos, and the American public, by and large, is unaware of the essence of the hypothesis posed due to media blackout.
I think I'm being VERY reasonable about this considering the subject matter. Treason isn't a fucking laughing matter to me, and it's a struggle to resist wanting to assassinate some people, old-school-like. I'm doing my best here, but you give me, or the people who share my belief in the conspiracy, no credit whatsoever.
All you see from an outside perspective is how we're alienating those who refuse to listen and thus making it more difficult to win elections on 'our side', which is ridiculous since truth should have no 'side'.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-12 12:29:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Vegence, did you actually just point out that a penny has a less aerodynamic shape and tell me to not ignore variour variables? You're right, but why don't you try that with your fucking videos? You and you other hipocrates are pointinp out small anomalies and ignoring the possibility that they could be easily explained by unnamed variables. Fucking douche.
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 12:16:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:44:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
"See the error in that? The penny isn't 'prevented' from reaching terminal velocity, it HAS reached terminal velocity in your scenario. ;)"""""
AHAHAHA! Touche, dicktrickle. :P
However, the results are still the same.
As for the WTC7 argument of falling in a vacuum freefall, I don't see how that's even remotely plausible. In order for that effect to be achieved, every single molecule of the building would have to be separated and prevented from further contact (completely overcoming inherent molecular attraction in a zero-atmosphere environment) until contact with the ground below. That alone is why I disregard the "scientific" credibility of that part of the video.
-------------------
That's the thing... The people making the documentary concede that this is an unexpected result, but it's right there for you to see yourself. The only variable is the accuracy of the program they're using and their measurements (which can be double-checked easily enough).
They had to literally set the air resistence to "0" to match the fall of building 7 visually.
As you probably know, explosions create vaccuums as the air is forced away from the blast area. You also probably know that buildings that fall due to "pancaking floors" shouldn't buckle that the top, and they should meet with resistence at every floor (we are talking about structural steel and reinforced concrete here, after all).
I agree that it's difficult to convey or even 'prove' anything relating to the twin towers, but if ANYTHING out of the entire lexicon of conspiracy evidence should convince people, it should be the official story of building 7 and the obvious visual evidence to the contrary. That is a classic demolition if ever I saw one. Plus, people even claimed to have heard and seen explosions coming from the building. Take in the Larry Silverstein slip up on camera to PBS, and the official story begins to crumble even faster than the building itself.
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:56:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:25:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
So..let me make you state something clearly...the so called scientists trying to make money ou...oh I'm sorry trying to proove the truth about 11/9 have prooven that building 7 fell at a rate only achieveable in a vacuum.
I realise that this is a direct quote of what you said but I just want you to confirm it again.
-------------------
Essentially, yes.
But if making money were the only goal, these documentaries wouldn't be fully available on google video. You don't see feature length Hollywood movies on google video. Some of them even offer to send you their videos at cost or in bulk so you can show them to others.
These people are patriots in my mind. Even non-profit organizations have expenses and people to pay. Manufacturing DVDs and finding someone to handle the operations of sale is not cheap. Are some of them making money, probably. But after all, this is America. Should they not be able to make a living doing the kind of work they feel is necessary?
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:44:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"See the error in that? The penny isn't 'prevented' from reaching terminal velocity, it HAS reached terminal velocity in your scenario. ;)"""""
AHAHAHA! Touche, dicktrickle. :P
However, the results are still the same.
As for the WTC7 argument of falling in a vacuum freefall, I don't see how that's even remotely plausible. In order for that effect to be achieved, every single molecule of the building would have to be separated and prevented from further contact (completely overcoming inherent molecular attraction in a zero-atmosphere environment) until contact with the ground below. That alone is why I disregard the "scientific" credibility of that part of the video.
I concede that there are many things that don't add up surrounding 9/11. Yet, a continual argument about the physics of a falling structure(s) is highly unlikely to result in a revelation of truth about the event. These "scientists" can argue about the rate of fall and puffs of smoke all they want; until they offer sound, undeniable evidence as to HOW that type of demolition was achieved, their speculations will never be considered anything more than fringe hypotheses.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:39:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 10:55:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-12 08:32:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 16:12:10 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-11 15:16:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
That's if you ignore the factor that the building might have took longer than 8 seconds to fall.
---------------------
Well, that was the whole point of urging you to watch the video, Caul...so you could count for yourself if need be. The building took between 10 and 12 seconds to completely collapse; that is, the top floor of the building reached the ground in the same amount of time it should have taken it to do so in a free fall. If you're skeptical, check it yourself.
The video evidence of that day is a treasure trove of information if we care to take a look.
====
I watched the fucking videos, bitch. Stop saying this over and over. While they do bring up interesting questions, they also speculate about the most retarded shit.
--------------------
There are other videos that go into more detail about the timing of the falls, particularly of building 7.
I don't see how you can think something this important is 'retarded'. And you criticise Americans for not paying enough attention to politics? You criticized us for Bush over and over again, as I seem to recall, but now you don't want us questioning our government?
===
Ah mon choux...you're exactly the reason why America is polarized.
In most countries, debates take place in a calm and sane environment whereas in the U.S. you have one side which plays the galvanizing patriotic card and another side, which you are part of, that would rather look like lunatics than capitalize on their political opponents fuck ups.
Whether you're from the right, left, centre, up, down, whatever...this kind of melodrama is useless.
You want answers on 9/11? Fine. I agree with you, in fact. But stop telling everyone to wake the fuck up because the government did it when YOU. DO. NOT. KNOW. Stop speculating. You do more harm than good. Weirdos like you and Alex Jones have hijacked a perfectly legetimate cause and turned it into a fucking circus about skulls&bones and the new world order and god knows what.
And I have changed my mind about Bush. He is a powerless incompetent illiterate who has been elected TWICE and has been given carte blanche to do anything he pleases and for that, there is no one else to blame than the American people.
You are all degenerates completly uncapable of introspection. If you weren't hysteric retards, you wouldn't blame your president or other countries for all the wrongs in this world and you would have a better voter turn out than barely 60% and perhaps you would not react to political maneuvers so easily.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:25:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So..let me make you state something clearly...the so called scientists trying to make money ou...oh I'm sorry trying to proove the truth about 11/9 have prooven that building 7 fell at a rate only achieveable in a vacuum.
I realise that this is a direct quote of what you said but I just want you to confirm it again.
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:21:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:06:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
Fucking Christ let it go!
-----------------
Let's see...possibly the largest act of alleged treason in human history and you want us to 'let it go'.
Smart.
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:19:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-12 10:54:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:03:52 (#)
Ranking: -2
Yes, if you drop a penny and a bowling ball from the same height they will both hit the ground at the same time.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:13:27 (#)
Ranking: -2
trust me, i know what I'm talking about.
---------------------
If you knew what you were talking about, then you would know that your statement is true only in a zero-atmosphere environment. A penny doesn't have a very aerodynamic shape, while a bowling ball does, relatively. While the physics of what you said are true, the resistance (wasn't that how the discussion was started?) of the air will cause the penny to tumble, thus slowing it and preventing it (albeit slightly) from reaching terminal velocity. As such, in an experiment like your first statement in Earth's atmosphere performed multiple times, many if not all of the iterations will result in the bowling ball hitting the ground first.
Now, an object the size and shape of said bowling ball with the mass of a penny vs. a 16-lb. bowling ball will certainly fall at the same rate. You sort of picked up that slack in your cereal box/baseball vs. cereal box/whiffleball example, although it had become an argument about force by then.
I know it's a nitpicking point, but an equation with missing variables is neither a precise nor an accurate equation and must not attempt to be established as a proof.
I've already said what I think about the whole 9/11 thing previously in this post and I'm on your side of the argument, neph. I just think that if you're going to offer yourself as a scholar of physics, you should at least be accurate. Otherwise, you only hurt your credibility. Terminal velocity is inherently a variable equation, thus ALL variables must be considered.
--------------------
Jeremy, listen, check out this video when you get time: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603
There are a lot of parts that you could just fast forward through, but I'd like you to particularly watch the parts where they talk about the sound waves and the fact that building 7 fell at a rate that could only be achieved in a vacuum/resistence-free free fall.
Oh, ans PS: You said, "While the physics of what you said are true, the resistance (wasn't that how the discussion was started?) of the air will cause the penny to tumble, thus slowing it and preventing it (albeit slightly) from reaching terminal velocity."
See the error in that? The penny isn't 'prevented' from reaching terminal velocity, it HAS reached terminal velocity in your scenario. ;)
If anyone is intelligent enough to see through all the bullshit surrounding 9/11, Jeremy, you should be able to. To me, it's become pretty obvious.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:06:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fucking Christ let it go!
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 10:55:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-12 08:32:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 16:12:10 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-11 15:16:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
That's if you ignore the factor that the building might have took longer than 8 seconds to fall.
---------------------
Well, that was the whole point of urging you to watch the video, Caul...so you could count for yourself if need be. The building took between 10 and 12 seconds to completely collapse; that is, the top floor of the building reached the ground in the same amount of time it should have taken it to do so in a free fall. If you're skeptical, check it yourself.
The video evidence of that day is a treasure trove of information if we care to take a look.
====
I watched the fucking videos, bitch. Stop saying this over and over. While they do bring up interesting questions, they also speculate about the most retarded shit.
--------------------
There are other videos that go into more detail about the timing of the falls, particularly of building 7.
I don't see how you can think something this important is 'retarded'. And you criticise Americans for not paying enough attention to politics? You criticized us for Bush over and over again, as I seem to recall, but now you don't want us questioning our government?
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-12 10:54:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:03:52 (#)
Ranking: -2
Yes, if you drop a penny and a bowling ball from the same height they will both hit the ground at the same time.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:13:27 (#)
Ranking: -2
trust me, i know what I'm talking about.
---------------------
If you knew what you were talking about, then you would know that your statement is true only in a zero-atmosphere environment. A penny doesn't have a very aerodynamic shape, while a bowling ball does, relatively. While the physics of what you said are true, the resistance (wasn't that how the discussion was started?) of the air will cause the penny to tumble, thus slowing it and preventing it (albeit slightly) from reaching terminal velocity. As such, in an experiment like your first statement in Earth's atmosphere performed multiple times, many if not all of the iterations will result in the bowling ball hitting the ground first.
Now, an object the size and shape of said bowling ball with the mass of a penny vs. a 16-lb. bowling ball will certainly fall at the same rate. You sort of picked up that slack in your cereal box/baseball vs. cereal box/whiffleball example, although it had become an argument about force by then.
I know it's a nitpicking point, but an equation with missing variables is neither a precise nor an accurate equation and must not attempt to be established as a proof.
I've already said what I think about the whole 9/11 thing previously in this post and I'm on your side of the argument, neph. I just think that if you're going to offer yourself as a scholar of physics, you should at least be accurate. Otherwise, you only hurt your credibility. Terminal velocity is inherently a variable equation, thus ALL variables must be considered.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-12 10:46:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
These videos are propaganda bullshit and to call someone out for being republican is bullshit. Even if the government did do it then it goes back to the previously democratic administration. There were aspects of 9/11 going on way back then, flight classes and such. But to claim that admist all the actual evidence would be asinine. Fact is you want us to explain how this crap is bullshit. We can't becaure each attempt yields an equally false response. But what do i know, i just figured that if these buildings so blatently were blown that every structural enginees in the country would speak up and not jurt a handful of speculative, democratic ones. It's people like you that make me pro-choice. Bye.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-06-12 08:47:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How the hell did this come back up aga... Oh wait, I see Brad involved.
Nevermind.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-12 08:32:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 16:12:10 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-11 15:16:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
That's if you ignore the factor that the building might have took longer than 8 seconds to fall.
---------------------
Well, that was the whole point of urging you to watch the video, Caul...so you could count for yourself if need be. The building took between 10 and 12 seconds to completely collapse; that is, the top floor of the building reached the ground in the same amount of time it should have taken it to do so in a free fall. If you're skeptical, check it yourself.
The video evidence of that day is a treasure trove of information if we care to take a look.
====
I watched the fucking videos, bitch. Stop saying this over and over. While they do bring up interesting questions, they also speculate about the most retarded shit.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2006-06-11 21:40:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2006-06-11 21:12:05 (#)
Ranking: 2
Keep it up.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2006-06-11 21:12:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Keep it up.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-06-11 20:28:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I know I rated this before and I can't remember what I rated it.
I agree with Stabkill on a lot of things, but I can't help but think that the 9/11 attacks might have been known about aforehand.
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 18:45:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sorry, that wasn't Shlongy. Scratch the last sentence. It's Stabkill. Stabkill is a Republican, and he's going to shoot down whatever you say because...well...because.
My theory is, like me, his father and grandfather were Republican, so he was institutionalized at an early age to think niggers and spics were destroying the fabric of America with their criminal ways and welfare reliance, and now he's going to defend any old fucking moron who claims to love Reagan like his daddy did.
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 18:41:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-11 16:39:33 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-06-11 16:33:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
Why the hell does this shit pop up so far later? That "loose change" below is simply bullshit.
.. like all those bullshit videos that overlook facts to acheive their own goal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Then enlighten us. What makes the Loose Change video bullshit? Calling something bullshit doesnt make it so. What facts are they overlooking?
--------------
No fucking shit.
He can't tell you, Res. He probably hasn't even seen it. I'm sure he's read plenty of articles ABOUT it, though.
The internet is a cesspool of idiots, and Shlongy is probably the biggest. Good luck getting a straight answer from him.
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-11 16:39:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-06-11 16:33:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
Why the hell does this shit pop up so far later? That "loose change" below is simply bullshit.
.. like all those bullshit videos that overlook facts to acheive their own goal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Then enlighten us. What makes the Loose Change video bullshit? Calling something bullshit doesnt make it so. What facts are they overlooking?
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-06-11 16:33:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why the hell does this shit pop up so far later? That "loose change" below is simply bullshit.
.. like all those bullshit videos that overlook facts to acheive their own goal.
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 16:18:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Chazzy (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:33:06 (#)
Ranking: 2
Do u realise the media is controlled by the few companies that pretty much own the world?? These companies benefit from the war "on terror". The ignorance of some of the replies is laughable.
----------------------
Isn't it just!?
Why do you think I don't bother posting here anymore?
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 16:15:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 15:26:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
The resistance of the whole building is not being met at once, only that of one floor. But multiple floors of rubble are falling on it. The easy at which the resistance is matched lets the building fall at a free fall. Imagine a stack of dominos where eaching falling part adds to the weight of the next. Halfway through there is 55 dominos being used to push over one. So, H get your point, it's just wrong. Or do you just want to keep saying "resistance slows stuff down"? I mean it does, but sometimes barely. And keep in mind, with each falling floor the process starts over. It stops for a split second, speeds up, and takes a smaller stop at the next floor breakthrough. Thir keeps up, building more mass until the "stop" caused by the resistance is practically not there. Thus creating a virtual freefall. meh.
----------------------
Keep reaching. Now you sound even worse than those on the video.
Let me ask you this...you care so much, why didn't you even bother to watch the REST of the video? Or better yet, go watch this video called "Loose Change" and THEN argue for the government's official story some more.
http://www.seeloosechange.com/
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 16:12:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-11 15:16:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
That's if you ignore the factor that the building might have took longer than 8 seconds to fall.
---------------------
Well, that was the whole point of urging you to watch the video, Caul...so you could count for yourself if need be. The building took between 10 and 12 seconds to completely collapse; that is, the top floor of the building reached the ground in the same amount of time it should have taken it to do so in a free fall. If you're skeptical, check it yourself.
The video evidence of that day is a treasure trove of information if we care to take a look.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 15:26:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The resistance of the whole building is not being met at once, only that of one floor. But multiple floors of rubble are falling on it. The easy at which the resistance is matched lets the building fall at a free fall. Imagine a stack of dominos where eaching falling part adds to the weight of the next. Halfway through there is 55 dominos being used to push over one. So, H get your point, it's just wrong. Or do you just want to keep saying "resistance slows stuff down"? I mean it does, but sometimes barely. And keep in mind, with each falling floor the process starts over. It stops for a split second, speeds up, and takes a smaller stop at the next floor breakthrough. Thir keeps up, building more mass until the "stop" caused by the resistance is practically not there. Thus creating a virtual freefall. meh.
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-11 15:17:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:58:06 (#)
Ranking: 2
You're all totally missing the point. I can only surmise you're doing it on purpose as I don't believe anyone can possibly be this fucking stupid.
If the floors offer ANY RESISTENCE AT ALL, (as they are BOUND to do by the laws of physics), they will cause some time lag. What the people in that video are suggesting is that, because the buildings collapse at the same rate as they would if falling through only air, there is no resistence being posed by the floors; therefore the "pancaking" theory cannot be true because "pancaking" requires force, which requires transfer of energy, which causes slowdown. The only other explanation is that the floors' resistence was removed beforehand possibly by explosives.
Whatever. I'm done with this argument.
---------------------------------------------------------
Exactly.
WTC 1 & 2 = 110 floor collapse in under 10 seconds.
It's like saying a 10 story steel building could fall in 1 second flat. Impossible without precise charges.
Here is a clip from PBS.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6455428412411043437&q=wtc+7+pulled
Larry Silvertein clearly states they "pulled" building 7.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-11 15:16:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:58:06 (#)
Ranking: 2
You're all totally missing the point. I can only surmise you're doing it on purpose as I don't believe anyone can possibly be this fucking stupid.
If the floors offer ANY RESISTENCE AT ALL, (as they are BOUND to do by the laws of physics), they will cause some time lag. What the people in that video are suggesting is that, because the buildings collapse at the same rate as they would if falling through only air, there is no resistence being posed by the floors; therefore the "pancaking" theory cannot be true because "pancaking" requires force, which requires transfer of energy, which causes slowdown. The only other explanation is that the floors' resistence was removed beforehand possibly by explosives.
Whatever. I'm done with this argument.
===
That's if you ignore the factor that the building might have took longer than 8 seconds to fall.
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:58:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You're all totally missing the point. I can only surmise you're doing it on purpose as I don't believe anyone can possibly be this fucking stupid.
If the floors offer ANY RESISTENCE AT ALL, (as they are BOUND to do by the laws of physics), they will cause some time lag. What the people in that video are suggesting is that, because the buildings collapse at the same rate as they would if falling through only air, there is no resistence being posed by the floors; therefore the "pancaking" theory cannot be true because "pancaking" requires force, which requires transfer of energy, which causes slowdown. The only other explanation is that the floors' resistence was removed beforehand possibly by explosives.
Whatever. I'm done with this argument.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:46:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm typing this on my phone and I keep typing shit wrong, so I'm out. Hell, I'm just a "n00b" anyway... What do I know?
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:36:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The speed might increase, onls because the begging of the collapse had low force, but it would quickley level off becaure of terminal velocity of a fall. I think in reality it would increase a bit at first, then maintain a constant speed freefall. but its all clore enough. the point is that the collapse can indeed acheive a "controlled in appearance" freefall that people claim could only be acheived with explosives.
Submitted by Chazzy (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:33:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Do u realise the media is controlled by the few companies that pretty much own the world?? These companies benefit from the war "on terror". The ignorance of some of the replies is laughable.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:31:17 (#)
Ranking: -2
Its doubtful the government had any part in 9/11. I don't know anything about engineering or explosives, but I do know if any LEGIT info about them having a hand in it was shown to the public there would be many hunting rifles sported by angry citizens up Washington's ass, and lots of dead politicians.
They wouldn't do that shit simply because they know we'd fucking kill them.
And I can't believe I justified this crap with a response. Aliens make more sense than this.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:27:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Superconduction states that things travel quicker with little resirtance. If there was no resistance the two masses would wall at the same speed, but there is resistance, and it slows down the low mass low force option greatly, where the high mass high force option can break through the resistance earily, creating an almost freefall. But yes, had the trade centers had no resirtance, the mass would've had no effect on the collapse speed.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:26:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Superconduction states that things travel quicker with little resirtance. If there was no resistance the two masses would wall at the same speed, but there is resistance, and it slows down the low mass low force option greatly, where the high mass high force option can break through the resistance earily, creating an almost freefall.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:23:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
increasing not decreasing.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:23:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Demons have better tast in music.
whuwm whuwm whuwm whuwm
whu-um whu-um whu-um whu-um
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:22:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Nephillin i think it would speed it up, cos the amount of resistance would be relatively decreasing so the resulting speed would be decreasing.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:20:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:15:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
ER.....anyone here know what can cause bass lines on a computer.
I turned my speakers on to listen to that audio clip...wait that was the other post...anyway, at first I assumed that this whumwhumwhumwhumw uhwmuhwmwhuuuum, was on that, but its still going. for half an hour. where is it coming from? anyhelp? anyideas? there aren't any mediaplayers or websites open apart from ubersite....
====
Computer demon infestation. Call Ghostbusters.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:17:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I should fix my own mistake. The heavy mass would not speed up the collapse speed, it would keep it conrtant because it can easier break through the resistance, where a low mass would slow down because it has less force to break through the resistance with. Thus, the heavy mass kept the collapse at the nice "controlled" speed. i'm out.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:15:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ER.....anyone here know what can cause bass lines on a computer.
I turned my speakers on to listen to that audio clip...wait that was the other post...anyway, at first I assumed that this whumwhumwhumwhumw uhwmuhwmwhuuuum, was on that, but its still going. for half an hour. where is it coming from? anyhelp? anyideas? there aren't any mediaplayers or websites open apart from ubersite....
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:12:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:07:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
and the fact there is resistance is an important part of my argument. if there was none, mass would be irrevelant because there would be nothing for the forces to work against.
========
Which is almost a corollary to the theory of true superconduction.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:07:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and the fact there is resistance is an important part of my argument. if there was none, mass would be irrevelant because there would be nothing for the forces to work against.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-11 14:07:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think he got bored. oh well.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:57:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Doesn't matter.
Force is the same for bowling ball and the baseball
I meant resistance is the same, RESISTANCE.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:55:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:49:40 (#)
Ranking: 2
...........Are you actually postulating that the cardboard box offers ZERO resistence to the bowling ball?
=========
The above is a chicken-shit example of Sophistry at its finest!!
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:54:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:49:40 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:36:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
Vengence, you said "It doesn't matter how much mass is pushing down on what. The fact is, a 20lb cannon ball will fall at the same rate as a 5lb cannon ball through the air."
This is not true. Here's an experiment you can try at home.
You'll need:
2 empty boxs of cereal
1 Baseball
1 Bowling ball
Set the boxs on your floor and write "WTC" on their sides. These will be your mini World Trade Centers.
Now choose a stanard height, say five feet, and drop the baseball onto box 1 from that height.
Next, repeat with box 2 and the bowling ball.
Now, look at and compare the fucking boxes and tell me that, "It doesn't matter how much mass is pushing down on what.
There, now you can show yourself how you "physics of falling objects" theory is wrong.
-------------------------
Are you actually postulating that the cardboard box offers ZERO resistence to the bowling ball?
-------------------------
Doesn't matter.
Force is the same for bowling ball and the baseball.
The point is that the heavier mass of several floors as compared to the mass of one floor, will break through that resistance easier, thus making the building's breakawayspeedup as more floors have collapsed. Thus the breakaway speed of 10 floor per second that we saw at the initial collapse is actually the slowest collapse speed of the whole ordeal.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:51:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Good work bubba, here's how it works.
An object's acceleration due to gravity is 9.86 m/per/second squared. Duh.
No matter what the mass is, that is it.
Since all the mass of any object, no matter how large or small, is acted upon with the same acceleration, the speed is always the same.
But...
Force is equal to Speed * Mass.
So, let's say we have two objects, a 1 g ball, and a five g ball, both traveling at 1 meter per second....
1g * 1m/s = a force of 1
5g * 1m/s = a force of 5
TaaaFreakingDahh!!!
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:51:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
OHhhhhh that was where you disproooved me, well its quite simple brad, you're wrong. the flooors would accelerate faster than they were being slowed down. Simple no?
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:49:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:36:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
Vengence, you said "It doesn't matter how much mass is pushing down on what. The fact is, a 20lb cannon ball will fall at the same rate as a 5lb cannon ball through the air."
This is not true. Here's an experiment you can try at home.
You'll need:
2 empty boxs of cereal
1 Baseball
1 Bowling ball
Set the boxs on your floor and write "WTC" on their sides. These will be your mini World Trade Centers.
Now choose a stanard height, say five feet, and drop the baseball onto box 1 from that height.
Next, repeat with box 2 and the bowling ball.
Now, look at and compare the fucking boxes and tell me that, "It doesn't matter how much mass is pushing down on what.
There, now you can show yourself how you "physics of falling objects" theory is wrong.
-------------------------
Are you actually postulating that the cardboard box offers ZERO resistence to the bowling ball?
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:43:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
What? If you pick a leaf, you don't really turn into a tree?
My Mom always said. . .
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:40:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Simply because two objects fall at the same speed does not
mean they hit with the same force. The hitting force is
directly proportional to the mass of the object.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:39:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and better yet, use a baseball and a wiffle ball for the experiment so that you can't argue with some size, weight distribution, bullshit.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:38:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:28:23 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:24:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:03:52 (#)
Ranking: -2
Vengence, you're a fucking moron.
Yes, if you drop a penny and a bowling ball from the same height they will both hit the ground at the same time.
Now stand under them when I drop them and tell me the fucking bowling ball doesn't have a bit more force against your head than the penny.
----------------------------------------------------
Vengence, you thwarted nothing.
You are wrong.
It's simple physics, just like you say.
Just not in the way you say.
----------------------
Then enlighten me. Don't just fucking SAY I'm wrong. Show me HOW I'm wrong...
...or kindly shut the fuck up.
===
How about YOU shut the fuck up?
Except for hammering these little details, you have yet to fit your theory into reality.
All you said so far is completly speculative bullshit about a New World Order.
Go back to school you fucking idiot and learn how a theory actually works.
Here, let me give you a crash course about what normal people learn in middle school:
Theory > Argument A + Argument B + Argument x > Argument A1 + Argument A2 + Argument Ax + Argument B1 + Argument B2 + Argument Bx + Argument x1 + Argument x2 + Argument xx ...ETCETERA!
JUST LIKE A TREE! GET IT?
Here's how YOU reason:
Argument A8' > Theory
YOU PICK A LEAF AND TURN INTO A TREE! WAY TO GO, EINSTEIN!
THE SPECIAL BUS IS HONKING, GET YOUR LUNCH BOX!
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:36:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Vengence, you said "It doesn't matter how much mass is pushing down on what. The fact is, a 20lb cannon ball will fall at the same rate as a 5lb cannon ball through the air."
This is not true. Here's an experiment you can try at home.
You'll need:
2 empty boxs of cereal
1 Baseball
1 Bowling ball
Set the boxs on your floor and write "WTC" on their sides. These will be your mini World Trade Centers.
Now choose a stanard height, say five feet, and drop the baseball onto box 1 from that height.
Next, repeat with box 2 and the bowling ball.
Now, look at and compare the fucking boxes and tell me that, "It doesn't matter how much mass is pushing down on what.
There, now you can show yourself how you "physics of falling objects" theory is wrong.
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:28:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:24:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:03:52 (#)
Ranking: -2
Vengence, you're a fucking moron.
Yes, if you drop a penny and a bowling ball from the same height they will both hit the ground at the same time.
Now stand under them when I drop them and tell me the fucking bowling ball doesn't have a bit more force against your head than the penny.
----------------------------------------------------
Vengence, you thwarted nothing.
You are wrong.
It's simple physics, just like you say.
Just not in the way you say.
----------------------
Then enlighten me. Don't just fucking SAY I'm wrong. Show me HOW I'm wrong...
...or kindly shut the fuck up.
I just spelled it out for you. You could at least conjure some semblance of knowing what the fuck you're talking about. Show me some numbers if necessary. This should be fun.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:24:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:03:52 (#)
Ranking: -2
Vengence, you're a fucking moron.
Yes, if you drop a penny and a bowling ball from the same height they will both hit the ground at the same time.
Now stand under them when I drop them and tell me the fucking bowling ball doesn't have a bit more force against your head than the penny.
----------------------------------------------------
Vengence, you thwarted nothing.
You are wrong.
It's simple physics, just like you say.
Just not in the way you say.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:22:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:18:25 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:10:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
and please accept brad that your knowledge of physics is comparable to that of a snail.
---------------------
Maybe so, but I just thwarted your sorry-ass argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What? where? serious querstion; I'm arguing on two posts at once and I must have missed something.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:22:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well bubba, at least you said government.
I think that's still bullshit, but at least you didn't say bush.
Cause yeah, bush planned it? You know, years ago, before he was president, he told those arabs to take flying classes so that when he won the presidency he could plan 9/11. bullshit.
But still. The government didn't plan it.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:18:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Jay and others may believe what they wish, but DON'T tell me there is
no chance the 911 shit was planned and executed by the u.S. government,
because it WAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Open your fucking eyes, people, and stop living in a fantasy world. . .
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:18:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:10:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
and please accept brad that your knowledge of physics is comparable to that of a snail.
---------------------
Maybe so, but I just thwarted your sorry-ass argument.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:13:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yeah, what woody said.
I guess no one knows who I am on this account, but oh well...
trust me, i know what I'm talking about.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:11:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
care not beleive.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:10:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and please accept brad that your knowledge of physics is comparable to that of a snail.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:09:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes brad, I figured out your comment about sponging of the state that originally confused me. I'd thought I had been telling people I'm a college student, but for some reason I can't remember right now I changed my story, possibly natural proggression I couldn't stay in college forever could I?
the point is that for reasons I'm not going to go into, I'm here anonymously, I'm not telling you my name proffession age or anything about my life. I am never coming to an ubercon.
nominally I wouldn't beleive what you thought about me, but if your repeated statements about my supposed slobidity get in the way of our discussions I feel i should correct you.
Glad you're bakc, don't really see why you don't use your main account though...
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:07:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
resignator, you're a moron too.
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:03:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Vengence, you're a fucking moron.
Yes, if you drop a penny and a bowling ball from the same height they will both hit the ground at the same time.
Now stand under them when I drop them and tell me the fucking bowling ball doesn't have a bit more force against your head than the penny.
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-11 13:00:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I see most of you are still fucking stupid as ever, particularly Woody. (Have you gotten a JOB yet, you fucking chav?)
It doesn't matter how much mass is pushing down on what. The fact is, a 20lb cannon ball will fall at the same rate as a 5lb cannon ball through the air.
Any force of resistence, i.e. anything other than air, with which an object comes into contact will prolong the time of the fall. The fact that the upper floors of the building above the initial source of the collapse fell at a rate consistant with an unimpeded freefall through air raise questions about why the lower "pancaking" floors didn't seem to offer ANY impedence.
Take that part of the argument or not, it's really immaterial, because the overwhelming evidence points to the U.S. government staging the whole fucking thing. Watch the rest of the video you lazy fuckers.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-11 12:46:55 EDT (#