LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

NIST shill outs himself on mainstream physics board!

NothingHitMe said:
They must be getting really bored re-hashing the same old tired and discredited tactics from the pages of their official shilling manuals. Talk about a dead-end job.
Click to expand...

You aren't getting enough irony in your diet, are you.
 
breakwall said:
You aren't getting enough irony in your diet, are you.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he/she has no idea what irony is. Unless THATS what caused the WTC towers to collapse. Irony weakened the superstructure! My god! We've discovered the TRUTH™!

It was the Villainous Spellbinder! He changed all of the IRON into IRONY through the dastardly addition of the letter 'Y'.

But look!
Faster than a rolling 'O'
Stronger than silent 'E'
Able to leap capital 'T' in a single bound!
It's a word, it’s a plan...it's Letterman!
 
Last edited:
breakwall said:
And there is MUCH MUCH more evidence to support that scenario then to dispute it.
Click to expand...

Funny that you can never win an argument about it then, and funnier still that in the polls it seems the majority don't agree with your assessment at all
 
Lovelynice said:
Funny that you can never win an argument about it then, and funnier still that in the polls it seems the majority don't agree with your assessment at all
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the source of those polls and thier overwhelming numbers. Anyone want to take bets that they come from one of the 9/11 conspiracy sites?

C'mon, show me a poll and where it came from.
 
Lovelynice said:
Funny that you can never win an argument about it then, and funnier still that in the polls it seems the majority don't agree with your assessment at all
Click to expand...

http://fpc.state.gov/c12030.htm

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

http://www.911independentcommission.org/

http://www.911digitalarchive.org/

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cocoon/minerva/html/sept11/sept11-about.html

I could go on and on and on.
The difference between the evidence presented here and the evidence presented by you is that mine is documented and researched by actual experts in their fields, highly educated and respected for their knowledge and training.
For instance:

Thomas Keane
W. Gene Corley
Vincent Dunn
Michael Hynes

Not "an author or TWO books" or a University of Waterloo Biology prof who admits freely that he is "no expert on cellular communication".

As far as I'm concerned, in ten minutes of basic research, I've just amassed not only MORE evidence to support my beliefs, but more CREDIBLE evidence.


And with that, I feel satisfied that I have made not only my point, but the point of all the level-headed people who have taken you to task on this thread.
 
And every single thing you quoted there falls apart in the detail.

You can't show the plane that you pretend hit the Pentagon, nor video from the 85 cameras showing said plane.

You can't prove cellphone calls can be made successfully from a passenger plane flying six miles up at over 450mph. Which means the cellphone calls were all fake.

You can't defeat the laws of physics which show that the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. On EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel & concrete buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition. Can you cite a single exception to this? With a photo.

PROVE ANY OF THIS WRONG..............www.loosechange911.com

Watch this video and then tell me that 19 guys with boxcutters did all this...... loose change 911
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change&pl=true

I'm amazed that with all the evidence posted here and everywhere else that these people still won't read it, investigate it, research it for themselves. All they do is yell and use vulgarities at us and try their best to distract others from examining the evidence for themselves.

Thousands of professionals have come out condemning the party lie behind 911. There is video and pictures and certified statement's disproving all the lies that the shills on this site want you to be conned by.

This is a documentary about 9/11 based around footage filmed by Richard A. Seigel. Using this rare video footage and scientific analysis, this film exposes the lies of 9/11 and shatters the government's official story. Please visit the movie's official website at http://www.911eyewitness.com where you can send evidence clips to their friends and/or buy the DVD.

pt 1 http://youtube.com/watch?v=sCDUyV6aXeM&search=911 eyewitness

pt 2 http://youtube.com/watch?v=CAAj544e1cc&search=911 eyewitness

pt3 http://youtube.com/watch?v=bQucQvXVhvc&search=911 eyewitness

You can't even get past basic physics and disprove this post from FLoG

Fat_lot_of_good said:
There's a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward - even just having to push air out of the way - there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be diminished.

And if an object's downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance.

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

It will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph. To be more accurate, it would actually be 9.22 seconds but I justwant to make sure others can easily follow it simply.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/911/WTC-A5-75.jpg

But this can only occur in a vacuum.

Most free-falling objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source)

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we were told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds.

That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully suported the mass of the tower for 30 years. You'd think the undamaged 89 and 73 lower floors in each of the buildings would provide signficant resistance to the collapse.

Air can't do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would?

what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower floors, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was "pulverized"

And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give.

While gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.

It is physically impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times.

How long should've the collapse taken?
Simulating a collapse by 1 floor intervals in approximation of the "pancake" theory. With this theory, no floor below the "pancake" can begin to move until the progressive collapse has reached that level.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/911/WTC-A4-75.jpg

If the entire building is to be on the ground in close to freefall time, the floors below the "pancaking" must start moving before the "progressive collapse” reaches that floor below. But this creates yet another problem. How can the upper floor be destroyed by slamming into a lower floor if the lower floor has already moved out of the way?

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/911/WTC-A1-75.jpg
This is assuming the building was turning to dust as the collapse progressed, which is essentially what happened.

So, for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving BEFORE the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone. This would require something like a detonation sequence.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg
In the picture (above), notice that WTC 2 is less than half of its original height, yet has no debris that has fallen ahead of the demolition wave.

It should be obvious by now that only a controlled demolition could achieve this.

And, I haven't even gone into the massive energy requirements just to smash through each of those floors.

It gets worse.

Although more recently the consensus has generally been that it's took a slight longer time than free fall, say about 12-13 seconds the seismic waves don't match.

Based on the Seismic Waves recorded at Palisades New York (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm)
Collapse 1, South Tower 09:59:04±1 2.1 10 seconds
Collapse 2, North Tower 10:28:31±1 2.3 8 seconds

They're SHORTER than the collapse times - particularly for the North Tower where the duration is less than the free fall time. That's IMPOSSIBLE unless the seismic waves are less caused from the collapsed debris impacting the ground than by something else.


Physics which proves outright that the WTC towers were brought down by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Anything else required to achieve this, was obviously done.

Next excuse?


http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/1/14_APwtcstudy.html

http://www.house.gov/science/wtc/charter.htm
Click to expand...
 
LN, I refuted those graphics a long time ago.

Same graphics - they haven't even corrected the typo.
 
The buildings were also a lot stronger towards the base by necessity, and many structural engineers were STUNNED by the catastrophic collapses happening as they did because the resistance and strength of the building becomes greater the lower down you go. Also, with all the random damage being blamed (fire, and impact), that the buildings went straight down into their own footprint - and did three times in a row - that's like seeing an event beyond the miraculous. Asymmetric structural damage seems is extraordinarily unlikely to create a symmetric collapse.

Demolition experts would be out of business is such things happened normally.

Those buildings were not vertical pillars of water or houses built of cards.

WTC 7 roofline to ground: 6.6 seconds. Symmetrical, straight down.
WTC 7 Collapse

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif

Who pulled those buildings? When are we going to prosecute them, as they ought to be prosecuted?

Or do you want to let these mass murderers go free who "pulled" WTC1 and WTC2?
 
phrodeau said:
LN, I refuted those graphics a long time ago.

Same graphics - they haven't even corrected the typo.
Click to expand...

You never refuted them at all.

You whinged about the typo, made bullshit excuses, and then carried on with more bullshit and spam.
 
Lovelynice said:
You never refuted them at all.

You whinged about the typo, made bullshit excuses, and then carried on with more bullshit and spam.
Click to expand...

i've posted the credentials of my sources.

Please post the credentials of the author of yours. I believe his name is Fat_lot_of_good.

Thank you.
 
breakwall said:
i've posted the credentials of my sources.

Please post the credentials of the author of yours. I believe his name is Fat_lot_of_good.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Apparently you can't cope with math, so you attack the messenger instead of the data. Loser.

As I said, you hadn't refuted it at all.
 
Lovelynice said:
Apparently you can't cope with math, so you attack the messenger instead of the data. Loser.

As I said, you hadn't refuted it at all.
Click to expand...

translation: I can't.
 
I've got links to structural engineers, FAA officials, FDNY fire chiefs, architects who worked on the original design of the buildings affected, aviation inspection experts, forensic researchers, construction engineers, materials analysts, demolition specialists...

and you've got Fat_lot_of_good.

...and I'M the one "attacking the messenger".

Have fun Lovelynice. I doubt anyone can take you seriously.
 
breakwall said:
I've got links to structural engineers, FAA officials, FDNY fire chiefs, architects who worked on the original design of the buildings affected, aviation inspection experts, forensic researchers, construction engineers, materials analysts, demolition specialists...
.
Click to expand...

another shill tactic is to claim that all of these people support his claims, without being able to cite or quote any evidence to prove it.
 
NothingHitMe said:
another shill tactic is to claim that all of these people support his claims, without being able to cite or quote any evidence to prove it.
Click to expand...
If you have a genuine argument, please use it.
 
phrodeau said:
If you have a genuine argument, please use it.
Click to expand...

This is what I stated
"another shill tactic is to claim that all of these people support his claims, without being able to cite or quote any evidence to prove it."

and it's true.
 
NothingHitMe said:
Which does not show that you won the argument.

Show me where in the debate with 'LN' where you won the debate.
Click to expand...

Ancathus beat the shit out of her up and down.

It starts here and just gets better and better. Ancathus just rips apart every argument she has...it's great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MusicForTheDeaf
Pamela Anderson said that Tim Allen exposed himself to her on the set of the TV sitcom "home improvement" and also threatened her with a hammer.
Replies
0
Views
81
MusicForTheDeaf
MusicForTheDeaf
Skippertyrell
Massage - more on offer?
Replies
4
Views
303
Dearelliot
D
SexyAruna
How BBC cuckolding went mainstream
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Mike130
M
1
Please, please get rid of the politics board.
3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
2K
stxjimmy
S
EG2001
Working in adult industry in 2001
Replies
3
Views
227
neon_noodle
neon_noodle
Back
Top