BLOWN TO BITS: PROOF of the 9/11 INSIDE JOB
Freedom Fighter
The sudden, complete, straight down at free fall speed collapse of steel
framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes, is the SMOKING
GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's minor fires and debris damage
could not account for this collapse, which had all the earmarks of
controlled demolition by explosives. Such demolitions take many days or
weeks to set up - not the few hours between the attacks and the collapse.
The explosives therefore had to be put in place BEFOREHAND, lending
credibility to the use of previously placed explosives to bring down the
towers as well, which like the damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building
would probably have remained standing.
Government-paid propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in
psychological denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it
obviously was, and they present often ludicrous explanations and
fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to defend
their indefensible position. The Homeland Terrorists are obviously
desperate to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the
foreknowledge if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and economic
exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster. Could Bin Laden have
somehow totally incapacitated our NORAD defenses on that horrible morning?
I don't think so!
But there is evidence of the INSIDE JOB as clear and indisputable as the
explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing down of NORAD.
Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on the roofs of nearby
buildings. These were too far away to be from jumpers from the towers. If
the towers simply collapsed from damage and fire alone, what blew these
bodies to smithereens and sent the fragments flying for considerable
distances? The plane impacts did not have the explosive brisance
(shattering force) necessary to do this - only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow
bodies to tiny bits and throw them such distances.
So - shills, disinformationists, and those chronically in denial - who among
you can credibly account for these body fragments, other than their being
the result of high explosives being detonated in the towers?
I await a barrage of infantile name-calling by frustrated adolescent fools,
media-brainwashed citizens in denial, and shills being paid to cover up the
CRIME OF THE CENTURY. Rational discussion is welcome; trolls and shills
will be killfiled and ignored.
SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade Center
(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
damaged remained standing.
In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11,
2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day
goes beyond the pale."
We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
that's "beyond the pale"!
Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the
emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
assertions?
The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as
a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes
and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything
else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was
quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
facts:
* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel core
columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity
alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do,
even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple,
unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a
reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
How Gravity Acts:
Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity
at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per second
for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier
objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at
64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
on.
Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is falling
at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen
16 feet.
Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in any
high-school physics book:
* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
And
* Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D = 1/2
x G x T x T)
So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:
Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
Checking Our Work:
We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work, using
conservation of energy.
We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely changes
form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy in
a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is converted
into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
[molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough to
shatter or even pulverize concrete.
In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water stored
up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever is
holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic energy.
The equation for potential energy is:
* Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x H)
The equation for kinetic energy is:
* Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a
mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x 144
= 4608
The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared = 1/2
x 9216 = 4608
So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. Seeing
that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent
analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy.
Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:
The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will
a solid metal ball.
That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order
for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential
energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of
32 ft/sec/sec.
In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per
second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
overcoming frictional resistance.
This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations
predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall. At
that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the air
creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration upward,
they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is maintained.
Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the person
attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
A Quick Recap:
Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air resistance
it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
fall a given distance.
Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
free-fall from the towers' height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
ground from the height of the WTC towers.
Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over
200 mph.
But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
ground.
Observations from 9/11:
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's
"complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
seconds. Here is the exact quote:
"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
not lie about this.
But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.
This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of
times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years
despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of
the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would?
Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper
floors less than would, say, a parachute?
It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than
10 seconds!
What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not
have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
physically impossible!
Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount
of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close
to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass,
eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have
done all these things at once.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE
DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
Conclusions:
In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed
duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure
of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
gravity.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can
be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth
of 9/11.
The Bottom Line:
The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the WTC
collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.
The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to
decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
presumptions, is also flawed.
The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
made no attempt to explain it.
Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
---------------------------------
FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB:
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation
Patrick Keenan
"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in message
news:ngA4k.82952$SV4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> BLOWN TO BITS: PROOF of the 9/11 INSIDE JOB
>
> The sudden, complete, straight down at free fall speed collapse of steel
> framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
But which was badly damged by debris and burned uncontrollably.
> is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's minor fires
> and debris damage
The fires and debris damage were anything but minor.
> could not account for this collapse, which had all the earmarks of
> controlled demolition by explosives.
Only if you interpret "none" as "all".
Which you are apparently bound and determined to do.
> Such demolitions take many days or weeks to set up - not the few hours
> between the attacks and the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be
> put in place BEFOREHAND,
An event for which there is no evidence. You are involving hundreds or
thousands of people over a long period of time, requiring their complicity.
If you can present any evidence that the work needed to ship and install
these explosives was actually done, present it now.
> lending credibility to the use of previously placed explosives to bring
> down the towers as well, which like the damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank
> building would probably have remained standing.
>
> Government-paid propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in
> psychological denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what
> it obviously was, <snippage>
What it obviously was, is not what you claim. It wasn't a controlled
demolition, by any means.
But I don't think that you even believe what you claim. If you did, you'd
be presenting your evidence where it counts, in civil court.
Why don't you tell us - honestly - why it is that you continue to present
this completely unsupportable crap?
-pk
Jude Outta Your Mind
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/barry-jennings-describes-bombs-in-wtc7.html
--
However much I may worship personality-powerful individual personality in
statesmen, inventors, artists, philosophers, or leaders, as well as the
collective personality of a historic group of human beings, which we call a
nation--however much I may worship personality, I do not regret its
disappearance. Whoever can, will, and must perish, let him perish. But the
distinctive nationality of Jews neither can, will, nor must be destroyed ~
Theodor Herzl, Father of Political Zionism
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
>BLOWN TO BITS: PROOF of the 9/11 INSIDE JOB
>
>The sudden, complete, straight down at free fall speed collapse of steel
>framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes, is the SMOKING
>GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's minor fires and debris damage
>could not account for this collapse,
Except the building had major damage from the collapse of WTC1 and
major fires. All of which has been repeatedly shown to you.
> Could Bin Laden have
>somehow totally incapacitated our NORAD defenses on that horrible morning?
>I don't think so!
And he didn't.
>But there is evidence of the INSIDE JOB as clear and indisputable as the
>explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing down of NORAD.
>Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on the roofs of nearby
>buildings. These were too far away to be from jumpers from the towers. If
>the towers simply collapsed from damage and fire alone, what blew these
>bodies to smithereens and sent the fragments flying for considerable
>distances?
Here's another little experiment for you. Let someone drop a one ton
mass on your head. Then have someone collect the remains and let us
know how far away they were found.
>So - shills, disinformationists, and those chronically in denial - who among
>you can credibly account for these body fragments, other than their being
>the result of high explosives being detonated in the towers?
Quite easily.
>I await a barrage of infantile name-calling by frustrated adolescent fools,
>media-brainwashed citizens in denial, and shills being paid to cover up the
>CRIME OF THE CENTURY. Rational discussion is welcome; trolls and shills
>will be killfiled and ignored.
"Trolls and shills" equals anyone who disputes your claims.
And for the umpteenth time:
>SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
>GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
>EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
>
>On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade Center
>(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
>the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
>the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
>straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
>touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
>minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
>damaged remained standing.
>
>In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
>former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
>"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11,
>2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day
>goes beyond the pale."
>
>We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
>that's "beyond the pale"!
Sure you will.
>Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
>phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the
>emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
>objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
>assertions?
>
>The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
>that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as
>a "pancake collapse".
No, sport, the "government" said no such thing. Lie #1.
>According to the government claims, the plane crashes
>and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
>heated the UL-certified structural steel
UL does not certify structural steel. Lie #2.
> to the point where it was
>significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
>repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything
>else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
Not without fireproofing and active fire response. Lie #3.
>According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was
>quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
>tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
>repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
>sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
It's called dynamic load, sport.
>There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
>facts:
>
>* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel core
>columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
Yes, it can.
>* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity
>alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
Yet, you can't demonstrate what the collapse time should have been,
can you?
>Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
>check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do,
>even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
>pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple,
>unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a
>reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
>such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
>American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
>
>How Gravity Acts:
>
>Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
>noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
>observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity
>at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
>magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
>become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
>certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
>
>Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
>ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
>same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
>fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
Which means that air resistence is at best neglible, if not
nonexistent. Remember that for later.
>So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
>anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
>greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
>falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
>accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per second
>for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier
>objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
>
>So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
>per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
>falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at
>64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
>on.
>
>Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is falling
>at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
>ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen
>16 feet.
For the first second. You neglect to mention that the object
continues to accelerate. In the case of the WTC towers, the upper
part of the building was traveling a couple hundred miles an hour by
the time it got to the ground.
>Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
>harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in any
>high-school physics book:
>
>* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
>
>And
>
>* Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D = 1/2
>x G x T x T)
>
>So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:
>
>Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
and at the end of 11 seconds, that object will have fallen 1936 feet.
The WTC towers were 1362 and 1368 feet tall.
>So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
>and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
So what?
Except the falling object in this case had a mass considerably more
than "1". Why do you neglect to calculate the kinetic energy
represented by the upper floors of the WTC towers falling on the lower
floors?
>So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. Seeing
>that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
>simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent
>analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy.
>Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
>
>One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:
>
>The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
>perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
>may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
>of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will
>a solid metal ball.
And in the case of large heavy objects, like steel beams (and your
Galileo example) air resistence can be neglected. It just doesn't act
on the object.
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys135d/modules/m4/2ndLaw.htm
"The force of gravity
Assume you are standing on a 20m high platform with a ball in your
outstretched hand. At t = 0 you let go of the ball and it starts
falling towards the ground below. At t = 0 the ball has zero
velocity. At some later time, but before it hits the ground, its
velocity is in the downward direction. Its speed is increasing as it
falls. The ball is accelerating. Why is a falling ball accelerating?
Which force is acting on it?
The force of gravity is acting on the falling ball. On the surface of
the earth, the direction of this force is always downward, towards the
ground. It pulls on all objects with mass.
As the object gains speed, other forces also act on it. The force of
friction on a moving object is always directed opposite to the
object's velocity. It always tries to slow down the object. The
magnitude of this force depends on the shape of the object, its speed,
and the medium in which it is moving. For many smooth, dense objects
the magnitude of the frictional force at low speeds in air is very
small compared to the gravitational force and we can safely neglect
it.
Assume we are dropping two smooth, spherical objects of different
masses, such as a bowling ball and a marble, at the same time. If the
force of gravity acting on the two objects had the same magnitude,
then the bowling ball would accelerate less and gain less speed in the
same amount of time. The marble would hit the floor first. In an
experiment, however, the two objects hit the floor at the same time.
They gain the same speed in the same time. This mean that the force
of gravity acting on the bowling ball must have a greater magnitude
than the force of gravity acting on the marble. The force of gravity
acting on an object must be proportional to the mass of the object.
We write
Fg = mg.
We also have Fg = ma from Newton's second law, so g = a. The
proportional constant g is called the acceleration due to gravity. On
the surface of the earth g = 9.8m/s2 and its direction is downward.
The force of gravity acting on an object is called its weight.
On the surface of the earth all objects experience the same
acceleration due to gravity in the downward direction, regardless of
their mass. The acceleration due to frictional forces is always in
the direction opposite the object's velocity, and differs from object
to object. However, when we are justified to neglect friction, then
we can say that all dropped objects accelerate at the same rate."
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/newtlaws/efar.html
"So in conclusion, the elephant falls faster than the feather because
it never reaches a terminal velocity; it continues to accelerate as it
falls (accumulating more and more air resistance), approaching a
terminal velocity yet never reaches it. On the other hand, the feather
quickly reaches a terminal velocity. Not requiring much air resistance
before it ceases its acceleration, the feather obtains the state of
terminal velocity in an early stage of its fall. The small terminal
velocity of the feather means that the remainder of its fall will
occur with a small terminal velocity. "
>That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
>gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order
>for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential
>energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of
>32 ft/sec/sec.
>
>In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
>falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
>energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
>its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per
>second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
>overcoming frictional resistance.
>
>This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations
>predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
>limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
>propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall. At
>that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
>increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
>incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the air
>creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
>terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration upward,
>they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is maintained.
>Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the person
>attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
And the debris from the WTC never reached terminal velocity.
>A Quick Recap:
>
>Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
>physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
>resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
>without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air resistance
>it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
>fall a given distance.
>
>Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:
>
>The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
>using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
>free-fall from the towers' height.
>
>Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
>
>With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:
>
>2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
>
>Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
>
>Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
>
>Time = 9.2
>
>So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
>ground from the height of the WTC towers.
>
>Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
>free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over
>200 mph.
>
>But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
No, that is not true. See above.
>Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
>imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
>arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
>objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
>example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
>mph.
Only if the person extends their arms and legs to slow themselves
down. One can fall faster than that with the right orientation. Oh,
and BTW, it takes some 12-15 seconds for a human body to reach 120
mph.
>Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
>than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
>ground.
Not according to real physicists. See above.
>Observations from 9/11:
>
>On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's
>"complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
>seconds. Here is the exact quote:
>
>"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
>government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
>not lie about this.
No, it's not. The 9/11 Commission Report is not a scientific, peer
reviewed document.
>But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
>seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.
Yet you can't tell us what the correct time should have been, can you?
>This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
>air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
>undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of
>times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
>core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years
>despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
And neither can steel if you know the difference between static load
and dynamic load.
Here's a test that's been suggested to people like you before.
Get a 50 pound sack of flour.
You can carry that in your arms, right?
Have someone climb a ladder with that 50 pound sack of flour up say 20
feet and drop it to you.
See what happens when you try to catch it.
>Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of
>the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would?
>Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper
>floors less than would, say, a parachute?
>
>It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
>you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
>minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than
>10 seconds!
If you can't say, then how do you know? You don't, so much for your
"scientific" physics paper.
>What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not
>have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
>rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
>physically impossible!
>
>Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
>high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
>glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
>Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
>energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount
>of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
>sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close
>to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
>expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass,
>eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
>The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have
>done all these things at once.
>
>Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE
>DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
It came from a many millions of pounds of building that existed above
the crash zones.
>Conclusions:
>
>In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed
>duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
>following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
>
>* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
>the collapse.
Wrong. And unsupported in your "scientific" paper.
>* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure
>of energy.
Wrong. And unsupported in your "scientific" paper.
>* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.
Wrong. And unsupported in your "scientific" paper.
>* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
>gravity.
Wrong. And unsupported in your "scientific" paper.
>* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
Wrong. And unsupported in your "scientific" paper.
>None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can
>be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
>the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth
>of 9/11.
>
>The Bottom Line:
>
>The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
>conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
>FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
>collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
>explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
You haven't even calculated the amount of energy involved in the
collapse, sport.
>It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
>destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
>free-fall time.
Yet you have shown no scientific evidence to support this
"conclusion".
> This fact
Which isn't a "fact" supported by any evidence that you've presented.
>debunks the preposterous contention that the WTC
>collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.
>The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
>towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
>came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
Yet you have not demonstrated what the duration of the collapse should
be. So much for your "science".
>So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
>story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
>premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to
>decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
>presumptions, is also flawed.
Since the "official" story isn't a pancake collapse, you're wrong from
the beginning.
>The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
>also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
>similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
>made no attempt to explain it.
Because, as you've been told many times, it wasn't in their charge to
do so.
****
>Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
>miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
>basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
There is a lot "beyond the scope" of your "analysis". You should
stick to fixing Xerox machines.
John P.
> BLOWN TO BITS: PROOF...
... that Reality Fighters brains cannot be put back together.
You've been rerunning this moronic crap for far too long for me to believe
you're actually this stupid. You must be a paid shill for Prof Jones.
Charmin
Freedom Fighter wrote:
> BLOWN TO BITS: PROOF of the 9/11 INSIDE JOB
>
> The sudden, complete, straight down at free fall speed collapse of steel
> framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes, is the SMOKING
> GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's minor fires and debris damage
> could not account for this collapse, which had all the earmarks of
> controlled demolition by explosives. Such demolitions take many days or
> weeks to set up - not the few hours between the attacks and the collapse.
> The explosives therefore had to be put in place BEFOREHAND,
The Bush administration is known for its meticulous planning and
attention to detail.
Freedom Fighter
news:2vSdncNNPc2zRc_V...@supernews.com...
>
> "Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in message
> news:ngA4k.82952$SV4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> BLOWN TO BITS: PROOF of the 9/11 INSIDE JOB
>>
>> The sudden, complete, straight down at free fall speed collapse of steel
>> framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
>
> But which was badly damged by debris and burned uncontrollably.
No, the fires were limited to a few floors and were not very extensive.
Steel-framed buildings such as this often have been gutted by fire but the
frame remained standing. Ordinary fires do not get hot enough to destroy a
steel girder frame.
>> is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's minor fires
>> and debris damage
>
> The fires and debris damage were anything but minor.
They were far less severe than in the Deutchbank building and others in the
area that remained standing. The Deutchbank building in fact survived a more
recent fire as well.
>> could not account for this collapse, which had all the earmarks of
>> controlled demolition by explosives.
>
> Only if you interpret "none" as "all".
This is an unsupported assertion. Saying it does not make it true.
> Which you are apparently bound and determined to do.
>
>> Such demolitions take many days or weeks to set up - not the few hours
>> between the attacks and the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be
>> put in place BEFOREHAND,
>
> An event for which there is no evidence. You are involving hundreds or
> thousands of people over a long period of time, requiring their
> complicity.
There is plenty of evidence. Did you read the article below the part of my
post that you commented on here? You snipped it out completely: SIMPLE
PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
> If you can present any evidence that the work needed to ship and install
> these explosives was actually done, present it now.
The evidence that it was done lies in the consequences of its being done.
Exactly how it was done I do not know; I am not a traitorous, mass-murdering
terrorist. The fact of the crime happening shows that it had to be knowingly
perpetrated.
>> lending credibility to the use of previously placed explosives to bring
>> down the towers as well, which like the damaged and fire-gutted
>> Deutchbank building would probably have remained standing.
>>
>> Government-paid propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in
>> psychological denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what
>> it obviously was, <snippage>
>
> What it obviously was, is not what you claim. It wasn't a controlled
> demolition, by any means.
And you know, no less can prove this is so, HOW?
> But I don't think that you even believe what you claim. If you did,
> you'd be presenting your evidence where it counts, in civil court.
A crime of this magnitude is not within the jurisdiction of civil court, and
if you thought about it I think you would realize that.
> Why don't you tell us - honestly - why it is that you continue to
> present this completely unsupportable crap?
Because I want to see my country saved from these malevolent fascists, and
freedom and justice restored.
Could one have a better reason?
Freedom Fighter
news:2vSdncNNPc2zRc_V...@supernews.com...
< snip >
I notice that you compelely evaded addressing the issue of: the body
fragments found on the roofs of nearby buildings. How do you explain these?
FF
danny burstein
>No, the fires were limited to a few floors and were not very extensive.
>Steel-framed buildings such as this often have been gutted by fire but the
>frame remained standing. Ordinary fires do not get hot enough to destroy a
>steel girder frame.
Hey, Freedom From Thought. You're still chickening out
on that MetroCard offer.
Scaredy cat.
Delusional, and pathetic, too.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
>"Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
I didn't avoid answering it. Why do you continue to avoid me?
Al Dykes
Freedom Fighter <lib...@once.net> wrote:
>"Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
>news:2vSdncNNPc2zRc_V...@supernews.com...
>>
>> "Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in message
>> news:ngA4k.82952$SV4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>> BLOWN TO BITS: PROOF of the 9/11 INSIDE JOB
>>>
>>> The sudden, complete, straight down at free fall speed collapse of steel
>>> framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
>>
>> But which was badly damged by debris and burned uncontrollably.
>
>No, the fires were limited to a few floors and were not very extensive.
100+ Firemen disagree with you and say that damage and fire caused
WTC7 to collapse.
Video contradicts your claim..
News reports on the afternoon quoted fireman that said that fire and
lack of firefighting was going to result in the collapse of WTC7.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
Al Dykes
Jumpers.
People blown through the buildings with the aircraft.
All those body parts were identified by DNA and we know where they say
in the building or in the plane.
No mystery, whatsoever.
John P.
> I notice that you compelely evaded addressing the issue of: the body
> fragments found on the roofs of nearby buildings. How do you explain
> these?
A big plane full of people traveling in excess of 400 mph hit a building
full of people, and the fuel in the plane exploded. People in a plane
traveling in excess of 400 mph, are, oddly enough, also traveling in excess
of 400 mph. If you had bothered to learn basic physics, you'd know that a
body in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an opposing force.
Thus, when the plane crashed into the building, as the plane was being
ripped to shreds, so were the people inside the plane - but it was all still
moving forward at 400+ mph, and, admittedly, decelerating. Additionally,
explosions tend to tear human bodies into pieces, as well as blow them
outward from the explosion.
That you think finding bone and body fragments on neighboring rooftops is
some big mystery indicates you completely lack sufficient knowledge to even
begin discussing the most basic aspects of this event.
Al Dykes
John P. <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote:
>"Reality Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in a message
>
>> I notice that you compelely evaded addressing the issue of: the body
>> fragments found on the roofs of nearby buildings. How do you explain
>> these?
>
>A big plane full of people traveling in excess of 400 mph hit a building
>full of people, and the fuel in the plane exploded. People in a plane
>traveling in excess of 400 mph, are, oddly enough, also traveling in excess
>of 400 mph. If you had bothered to learn basic physics, you'd know that a
>body in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an opposing force.
>Thus, when the plane crashed into the building, as the plane was being
...In February, the day of the Columbia tragedy, we got word they'd
found her United Airlines Mileage Plus card. It was found very near
where they'd found a piece of her right hip. We imagine that she
used the card early on the morning of Sept. 11 to get on the plane
and just stuck it in her back pocket, probably her right back
pocket, instead of in her purse. Source
http://cf.newsday.com/911/victimsearch.cfm?id=324
More where that came from:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911
Disneygeek
> "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in message
Well, let me think for a minute. 2 planes, filled with passengers,
crew and terrorists, hit the Towers, one at a time. The impact caused
a fireball to explode out the far side of each Tower. Are we supposed
to believe that the incredible destructive force of these impacts left
the bodies of the passengers, et. al., in a neat pile within the
Towers?
Al Dykes
Disneygeek <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 14, 2:57=A0pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>> "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2vSdncNNPc2zRc_V...@supernews.com...
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>> I notice that you compelely evaded addressing the issue of: the body
>?
>>
>> FF
>
>Well, let me think for a minute. 2 planes, filled with passengers,
>crew and terrorists, hit the Towers, one at a time. The impact caused
>a fireball to explode out the far side of each Tower. Are we supposed
>to believe that the incredible destructive force of these impacts left
>the bodies of the passengers, et. al., in a neat pile within the
>Towers?
DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and
4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have
been linked to a single person.
The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked
planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12
from Flight 175, which hit the south tower. Source
- New York Daily News, Sept 11, 2002
Iarnrod
> "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in message
> news:2vSdncNNPc2zRc_V...@supernews.com...
> > "Reality Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote in message
> >> Government-paid propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in
> >> psychological denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what
> >> it obviously was, <snippage>
>
> > What it obviously was, is not what you claim. It wasn't a controlled
> > demolition, by any means.
>
> And you know, no less can prove this is so, HOW?
Quite easily and by the simplest, irrefutable evidence of all"
It was not a controlled demolition, and it is physically impossible
for it to have been a controlled demolition, for the very simple
reason that there were no controlled demolition explosions seen, heard
or occurring at all. None.
That is what makes it impossible that this could have been a
controlled demolition. It's quite impossible to do so without the
requisite explosives in place.
Freedom Fighter
news:452c7864-197e-4e9d...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 14, 2:57 pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
> "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in message
>
> news:2vSdncNNPc2zRc_V...@supernews.com...
>
> < snip >
>
> I notice that you compelely evaded addressing the issue of: the body
> fragments found on the roofs of nearby buildings. How do you explain
> these?
>
> FF
> Well, let me think for a minute. 2 planes, filled with passengers,
crew and terrorists, hit the Towers, one at a time. The impact caused
a fireball to explode out the far side of each Tower. Are we supposed
to believe that the incredible destructive force of these impacts left
the bodies of the passengers, et. al., in a neat pile within the
Towers?
Almost.
The debris of the plane impacts remained mostly within the structure of the
towers.
The plane impacts and explosions of jet fuel were LOW-ORDER explosions -
capable of burning and possibly dismembering bodies, but NOT blowing them to
tiny bits. What blew them to smithereens and sent the fragments flying? The
necessary to do this - only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and
throw them such distances.
This was all explained in the original post, which you apparently didn't
bother to read before you responded here. Before responding further, read up
about explosives - low order and high order. Some of the phenomena of the
9/11 INSIDE JOB false-flag attacks clearly required HIGH explosives and
thermate (an incendiary used in controlled demolition to cut through steel
columns) to produce.
danny burstein
>The debris of the plane impacts remained mostly within the structure of the
>towers.
>The plane impacts and explosions of jet fuel were LOW-ORDER explosions -
>capable of burning and possibly dismembering bodies, but NOT blowing them to
Really? Tell you what, Freedom From Thought. Let's
accelerate your body to 500 miles/hr and throw
it against a steel and concrete framework, and
then see where its pieces land.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf
Scaredy cat. Pathetic, delusional, dysfunctional loon.
Al Dykes
It's called MOMENTUM, idiot. As newton said, a body in motion tends to
stay in motion. Newton never knew how literal his words would be.
Why do you keep making shit up about what must have or couldn't have
happened. What happened, happened.
DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and
4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have
been linked to a single person.
The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked
planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12
from Flight 175, which hit the south tower. Source
- New York Dialy News, Sept 11, 2002
Tell it to a fireman.
Iarnrod
> The debris of the plane impacts remained mostly within the structure of the
> towers.
> The plane impacts and explosions of jet fuel were LOW-ORDER explosions -
> capable of burning and possibly dismembering bodies, but NOT blowing them to
> tiny bits. What blew them to smithereens and sent the fragments flying? The
> plane impacts did not have the explosive brisance (shattering force)
> necessary to do this - only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and
> throw them such distances.
>
> This was all explained in the original post, which you apparently didn't
> bother to read before you responded here. Before responding further, read up
> about explosives - low order and high order. Some of the phenomena of the
> 9/11 INSIDE JOB false-flag attacks clearly required HIGH explosives and
> thermate (an incendiary used in controlled demolition to cut through steel
> columns) to produce.
BWAAAHAAHAHAHAAAA!!! BW-AAAAA-HAAAAAA-HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
OMG!!! BWAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!
Tell me you make this shit up as you go along!!! This is the stupidest
rationalization I've ever seen, even from you!!
BWAHAHAHAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAA!!!!!
Al Dykes
Freedom Fighter <lib...@once.net> wrote:
FF is probably clueless to the fact that at the floors that the planes
hit, the walls were two thirds window glass and the rest was box beams
were merely half-inch steel fabricated into 12 in x 18 inch (from
memory) boxes.
It was a piece of cake for a 140 ton plane at 450MPH to push it's way
through those walls. The body was only about 16 ft in diameter and
the entire weight of the plane was behind it.
That's FF; clueless.
Jim Davis
"Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:g340t6$bg7$1...@panix5.panix.com...
> FF is probably clueless to the fact that at the floors that the planes
> hit, the walls were two thirds window glass and the rest was box beams
> were merely half-inch steel fabricated into 12 in x 18 inch (from
> memory) boxes.
>
> It was a piece of cake for a 140 ton plane at 450MPH to push it's way
> through those walls. The body was only about 16 ft in diameter and
> the entire weight of the plane was behind it.
>
> That's FF; clueless.
Do these people also fail to realize that the weight of the upper portion of
the building had a bit to do with the collapse? Let's hit FF in the knee
with a baseball bat, and see if he falls down.
BDK
lib...@once.net says...
crash?
Apparently not, or you wouldn't say something so incredibly stupid.
But since it's coming from you, we couldn't expect anything better..
Thanks for the laughs..
--
BDK
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster
BDK
Freedom Fighter
news:B76dndAm5uMNE8jV...@supernews.com...
>
> "Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:g340t6$bg7$1...@panix5.panix.com...
>
>> FF is probably clueless to the fact that at the floors that the planes
>> hit, the walls were two thirds window glass and the rest was box beams
>> were merely half-inch steel fabricated into 12 in x 18 inch (from
>> memory) boxes.
>>
>> It was a piece of cake for a 140 ton plane at 450MPH to push it's way
>> through those walls. The body was only about 16 ft in diameter and
>> the entire weight of the plane was behind it.
>>
>> That's FF; clueless.
That's "Al Dykes," cluelessly and deliberately ignoring the specifics of my
post and discussing something else in a feeble attempt to discredit me. No
response whatsoever to the facts presented about the body fragments and near
free-fall building collapses.
> Do these people also fail to realize that the weight of the upper portion
> of the building had a bit to do with the collapse? Let's hit FF in the
> knee with a baseball bat, and see if he falls down.
You would never dare try it in person, coward!
Al Dykes
Freedom Fighter <lib...@once.net> wrote:
>"Jim Davis" <sky.d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:B76dndAm5uMNE8jV...@supernews.com...
>>
>> "Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:g340t6$bg7$1...@panix5.panix.com...
>>
>>> FF is probably clueless to the fact that at the floors that the planes
>>> hit, the walls were two thirds window glass and the rest was box beams
>>> were merely half-inch steel fabricated into 12 in x 18 inch (from
>>> memory) boxes.
>>>
>>> It was a piece of cake for a 140 ton plane at 450MPH to push it's way
>>> through those walls. The body was only about 16 ft in diameter and
>>> the entire weight of the plane was behind it.
>>>
>>> That's FF; clueless.
>
>That's "Al Dykes," cluelessly and deliberately ignoring the specifics of my
>post and discussing something else in a feeble attempt to discredit me. No
>response whatsoever to the facts presented about the body fragments and near
>free-fall building collapses.
Post your "physics paper" somewhere with people with relevant
expertise cans see it and you will have shown yourself to no longer be
a coward.
Or you can tell it to a firemen.
danny burstein
>> Do these people also fail to realize that the weight of the upper portion
>> of the building had a bit to do with the collapse? Let's hit FF in the
>> knee with a baseball bat, and see if he falls down.
>You would never dare try it in person, coward!
Speaking of cowards, how come you're still refusing
to pick up that MetroCard?
Pathetic, delusional, loon.
Freedom Fighter
news:MPG.22bf785d7...@news.buckeye-express.com...
--------------------------
Once again, before I killfile him, I must show what a fool this "BDK" is.
In a 100MPH car crash, especially headon or into a solid wall, the G-forces
are far greater than encountered by those people in the path of the
low-order explosion jet fuel fireballs. Even then however, bodies are not
shattered to tiny pieces. Those hit directly by the planes as they entered
the buildings were probably dismembered, but not blown to tiny bits, and
their remains mostly stayed inside the buildings with the plane debris. If
there were whole arms, legs, torsos, etc. found nearby, one could conclude
they were from such victims. But you need not believe me - research the
forensic information. It takes the brisance (extremely high G-forces) of
HIGH EXPLOSIVES to blow bodies to tiny fragments and send them flying great
distances. It wasn't until dynamite and other high explosive warheads began
to be employed in warfare that such phenomena were observed. Even large
black powder bombs couldn't do it.
Bye, bye, BDK. Your handlers will note that you are not a very effective
government coverup shill. You need some education in physics and chemistry.
Then maybe you can please your masters by actually designing weapons of mass
destruction for them, which I'm sure you would have no moral objections to
doing.
PLONK!
Al Dykes
Freedom Fighter <lib...@once.net> wrote:
>"BDK" <Shil...@silentexplosions.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.22bf785d7...@news.buckeye-express.com...
>> In article <Iie5k.93137$SV4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> lib...@once.net says...
>>> "Disneygeek" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:452c7864-197e-4e9d...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jun 14, 2:57 pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>>> > "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in message
>>> >
>>> > news:2vSdncNNPc2zRc_V...@supernews.com...
>>> >
>>> > < snip >
>>> >
>>> > I notice that you compelely evaded addressing the issue of: the body
>>> > fragments found on the roofs of nearby buildings. How do you explain
>>> > these?
>>> >
>>> > FF
>>> -------
>>> > Well, let me think for a minute. 2 planes, filled with passengers,
>>> crew and terrorists, hit the Towers, one at a time. The impact caused
>>> a fireball to explode out the far side of each Tower. Are we supposed
>>> to believe that the incredible destructive force of these impacts left
>>> the bodies of the passengers, et. al., in a neat pile within the
>>> Towers?
>>> ----------
No. They were spread all over the place and in places constant with
the recovered plane wreckage.
Describes here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911
BDK
lib...@once.net says...
How many fucking times will you try to killfile me, before you actually
do it?
>
> In a 100MPH car crash, especially headon or into a solid wall, the G-forces
> are far greater than encountered by those people in the path of the
> low-order explosion jet fuel fireballs.
The plane crashed into the building, moron!!
> Even then however, bodies are not
> shattered to tiny pieces. Those hit directly by the planes as they entered
> the buildings were probably dismembered, but not blown to tiny bits, and
> their remains mostly stayed inside the buildings with the plane debris. If
> there were whole arms, legs, torsos, etc. found nearby, one could conclude
> they were from such victims. But you need not believe me - research the
> forensic information. It takes the brisance (extremely high G-forces) of
> HIGH EXPLOSIVES to blow bodies to tiny fragments and send them flying great
> distances.
Holy shit, are you TRYING to look stupid?
> It wasn't until dynamite and other high explosive warheads began
> to be employed in warfare that such phenomena were observed. Even large
> black powder bombs couldn't do it.
>
> Bye, bye, BDK. Your handlers will note that you are not a very effective
> government coverup shill.
LOL, Keep the kookery coming, you poor loon. Only a kook thinks someone
would have to pay someone to laugh at you kooks!
> You need some education in physics and chemistry.
LOL, you would need years just to catch up to me, let alone some of the
other "shills".
> Then maybe you can please your masters by actually designing weapons of mass
> destruction for them, which I'm sure you would have no moral objections to
> doing.
I wouldn't want to design them, but if one was used to put you out of
your misery, maybe I would reconsider. Nah, not really, it would be a
shame to extinguish that flame of kooktardery that burns so brightly
inside that little head of yours.
>
> PLONK!
How many times now?
Doodoo
> In <f6j5k.48162$102....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> writes:
>
>>> Do these people also fail to realize that the weight of the upper portion
>>> of the building had a bit to do with the collapse? Let's hit FF in the
>>> knee with a baseball bat, and see if he falls down.
>
>> You would never dare try it in person, coward!
>
> Speaking of cowards, how come you're still refusing
> to pick up that MetroCard?
>
> Pathetic, delusional, loon.
Has anyone ever noticed that Danny Burstein has the same IP address as
Al Dykes and posts within a couple of minutes of each other.
>
>
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
John P.
>> Well, let me think for a minute. 2 planes, filled with passengers,
>> crew and terrorists, hit the Towers, one at a time. The impact caused
>> a fireball to explode out the far side of each Tower. Are we supposed
>> to believe that the incredible destructive force of these impacts left
>> the bodies of the passengers, et. al., in a neat pile within the
>> Towers?
> Almost.
> The debris of the plane impacts remained mostly within the structure of
> the towers.
Yup. Mostly. Just like the bodies of the passengers mostly remained within
the towers. But, mostly isn't all.
> The plane impacts and explosions of jet fuel were LOW-ORDER explosions -
> capable of burning and possibly dismembering bodies, but NOT blowing them
> to tiny bits. What blew them to smithereens and sent the fragments flying?
> The plane impacts did not have the explosive brisance (shattering force)
> necessary to do this - only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits
> and throw them such distances.
Why do you think the bodies were blown to bits as opposed to destroyed by
impacts with parts of the plane and buildings?
Disneygeek
> "Disneygeek" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Says who? Where are the experts claiming that the explosions of the
planes could not have caused the damage generated? What are there
creditials? If HIGH EXPLOSIVES were used to instigate the collapse,
why weren't explosions heard DURING the onset of the collapse as has
been shown in every other _real_ controlled demolition? And if
thermate was used, why wasn't the amount of thermate necessary to
cause this much damage visually obvious to everyone around? For that
matter WHERE have you ever seen or heard of termate being used in
controlled demolition jobs?
Disneygeek
> "BDK" <Shillk...@silentexplosions.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.22bf785d7...@news.buckeye-express.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <Iie5k.93137$SV4.69...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > libe...@once.net says...
> >> "Disneygeek" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're talking about the planes hitting people. I'm talking about
people IN those planes going from 400+ MPH to 0 MPH in a surprisingly
short period.
animal02
I guess reality fighter has never seen a wood chipper in action.
>
>> It wasn't until dynamite and other high explosive warheads began
>> to be employed in warfare that such phenomena were observed. Even large
>> black powder bombs couldn't do it.
>>
>> Bye, bye, BDK. Your handlers will note that you are not a very effective
>> government coverup shill.
>
> LOL, Keep the kookery coming, you poor loon. Only a kook thinks someone
> would have to pay someone to laugh at you kooks!
Poor deluded reality fighter.
>
>> You need some education in physics and chemistry.
>
> LOL, you would need years just to catch up to me, let alone some of the
> other "shills".
>
>> Then maybe you can please your masters by actually designing weapons of mass
>> destruction for them, which I'm sure you would have no moral objections to
>> doing.
>
> I wouldn't want to design them, but if one was used to put you out of
> your misery, maybe I would reconsider. Nah, not really, it would be a
> shame to extinguish that flame of kooktardery that burns so brightly
> inside that little head of yours.
>
>> PLONK!
>
> How many times now?
The sound of a troofer running away from the facts.
>
BDK
I think this is the fifth time he's claimed he's plonked me. It's
another skill he can't seem to master...Awwwww.
BDK
says...
Holy shit, does anyone not notice how stupid you are?
Al Dykes
Disneygeek <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 15, 9:31=A0pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>> "BDK" <Shillk...@silentexplosions.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:MPG.22bf785d7...@news.buckeye-express.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <Iie5k.93137$SV4.69...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> > libe...@once.net says...
>> >> "Disneygeek" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> >> On Jun 14, 2:57 pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>> >> > "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >news:2vSdncNNPc2zRc_V...@supernews.com...
>>
>> >> > < snip >
>>
>> >> > I notice that you compelely evaded addressing the issue of: the body
>> >> > fragments found on the roofs of nearby buildings. How do you explain
>> >> > these?
>>
>> >> > FF
>> >> -------
>> >> > Well, let me think for a minute. 2 planes, filled with passengers,
>> >> crew and terrorists, hit the Towers, one at a time. The impact caused
>> >> a fireball to explode out the far side of each Tower. Are we supposed
>> >> to believe that the incredible destructive force of these impacts left
>> >> the bodies of the passengers, et. al., in a neat pile within the
>> >> Towers?
>> >> ----------
>> >> Almost.
>
>> >> the
>> >> towers.
>> >> The plane impacts and explosions of jet fuel were LOW-ORDER explosions =
>-
>> >> capable of burning and possibly dismembering bodies, but NOT blowing th=
>em
>> >> to
>> >> tiny bits. What blew them to smithereens and sent the fragments flying?=
>
>> >> The
>> >> plane impacts did not have the explosive brisance (shattering force)
>s
>> >> and
>> >> throw them such distances.
>>
>t
>> >> bother to read before you responded here. Before responding further, re=
>ad
>> >> up
>> >> about explosives - low order and high order. Some of the phenomena of t=
>he
>> >> 9/11 INSIDE JOB false-flag attacks clearly required HIGH explosives and=
>
>> >> thermate (an incendiary used in controlled demolition to cut through
>> >> steel
>> >> columns) to produce.
>> > ROTFL. You ever seen what sometimes is left of people in a 100MPH+ car
>> > crash?
>>
>> > Apparently not, or you wouldn't say something so incredibly stupid.
>>
>> > But since it's coming from you, we couldn't expect anything better..
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Once again, before I killfile him, I must show what a fool this "BDK" is.
>>
>rces
>> are far greater than encountered by those people in the path of the
>> low-order explosion jet fuel fireballs. Even then however, bodies are not
>
>> the buildings were probably dismembered, but not blown to tiny bits, and
>
>> there were whole arms, legs, torsos, etc. found nearby, one could conclude=
>
>> they were from such victims. But you need not believe me - research the
>> forensic information. It takes the brisance (extremely high G-forces) of
>t
>> distances. It wasn't until dynamite and other high explosive warheads bega=
>n
>> to be employed in warfare that such phenomena were observed. Even large
>> black powder bombs couldn't do it.
>>
>> Bye, bye, BDK. Your handlers will note that you are not a very effective
>.
>> Then maybe you can please your masters by actually designing weapons of ma=
>ss
>> destruction for them, which I'm sure you would have no moral objections to=
>
>> doing.
>>
>> PLONK!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>You're talking about the planes hitting people. I'm talking about
>people IN those planes going from 400+ MPH to 0 MPH in a surprisingly
>short period.
Some portion of the aircraft didn't go quite to zero in the
building. It came out the back side of the building and brought some
body parts and lots of on-board stuff with it.
FDNY EMT Briam Smith: "So we went up to the 10-10 house...I
remember there was life jackets everywhere, the yellow in-flight
life jackets, and that the contrast of the yellow against all the
gray, you know. It stood out."
"...I noticed in the courtyard that there were valises, suitcases,
strewn about the courtyard. There were wallets everywhere, broken
glass, and then I noticed that there were airplane tickets." FDNY
firefighter John Moribito
The discovery of a foot and leg and a cockpit seat led to
speculation that one of the pilots had been found, Goldberg
said. Source
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/13_APdig.html
DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and
4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have
been linked to a single person.
The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked
planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12
from Flight 175, which hit the south tower. Source
- NY Daily News, Sept 11, 2002
Ob...@real.com
<Jo...@nospam.com> wrote:
>"Reality Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in a message
>
>> I notice that you compelely evaded addressing the issue of: the body
>> fragments found on the roofs of nearby buildings. How do you explain
>> these?
>
>A big plane full of people traveling in excess of 400 mph hit a building
>full of people, and the fuel in the plane exploded. People in a plane
>traveling in excess of 400 mph, are, oddly enough, also traveling in excess
>of 400 mph. If you had bothered to learn basic physics, you'd know that a
>body in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an opposing force.
>Thus, when the plane crashed into the building, as the plane was being
>ripped to shreds, so were the people inside the plane - but it was all still
>moving forward at 400+ mph, and, admittedly, decelerating. Additionally,
>explosions tend to tear human bodies into pieces, as well as blow them
>outward from the explosion.
>
>That you think finding bone and body fragments on neighboring rooftops is
>some big mystery indicates you completely lack sufficient knowledge to even
>begin discussing the most basic aspects of this event.
>
Hahaha... Better recheck your trajectories, look
for evidence that anything solid came through the
south tower fireball and such, then try again.
And that's just for starters. So to sum up, your
posting is irrational blather that makes no real
sense.
Ob...@real.com
wrote:
>In article <dLGdnWstH4lt5snV...@comcast.com>,
>John P. <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>"Reality Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in a message
>>
>>> I notice that you compelely evaded addressing the issue of: the body
>>> fragments found on the roofs of nearby buildings. How do you explain
>>> these?
>>
>>A big plane full of people traveling in excess of 400 mph hit a building
>>full of people, and the fuel in the plane exploded. People in a plane
>>traveling in excess of 400 mph, are, oddly enough, also traveling in excess
>>of 400 mph. If you had bothered to learn basic physics, you'd know that a
>>body in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an opposing force.
>>Thus, when the plane crashed into the building, as the plane was being
>
>
>
>
> ...In February, the day of the Columbia tragedy, we got word they'd
> found her United Airlines Mileage Plus card. It was found very near
> where they'd found a piece of her right hip. We imagine that she
> used the card early on the morning of Sept. 11 to get on the plane
> and just stuck it in her back pocket, probably her right back
> pocket, instead of in her purse. Source
> http://cf.newsday.com/911/victimsearch.cfm?id=324
>
>
>More where that came from:
> http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911
The space shuttle didn't burn up or explode!
It broke apart in oxygen starved space some 400,000
feet above sea level, torn apart by forces exerted
on the hull. But... Hey... Let's look at another
part of the issue. Namely, can you find pictures
of the parts of the space shuttle? How big is the
biggest fragment? How small is the smallest part
they found?
Once you answer that, and post links to your photos,
then we can discuss the WTC planes lack of debris.
Ob...@real.com
<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 14, 2:57 pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>> "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2vSdncNNPc2zRc_V...@supernews.com...
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>> I notice that you compelely evaded addressing the issue of: the body
>> fragments found on the roofs of nearby buildings. How do you explain these?
>>
>> FF
>
>Well, let me think for a minute. 2 planes, filled with passengers,
>crew and terrorists, hit the Towers, one at a time. The impact caused
>a fireball to explode out the far side of each Tower. Are we supposed
>to believe that the incredible destructive force of these impacts left
>the bodies of the passengers, et. al., in a neat pile within the
>Towers?
For starters: Where did you get the idea
that both planes completely penetrated the
towers from one side to the other?
I'll simply state that your are seriously misinformed
to start with. When you can answer back with
your corrected postings, then we can begin some
sane discussions of the matter. Until then you
only appear to be just another troll sprouting
unintelligible garbage. You don't seem to
realize that nobody, no one anywhere, on either
side of the issues, supports your claim that both
jets penetrated clear through both towers.
We'll wait for your corrections!
Ob...@real.com
wrote:
>In article <452c7864-197e-4e9d...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>Disneygeek <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Jun 14, 2:57=A0pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>>> "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:2vSdncNNPc2zRc_V...@supernews.com...
>>>
>>> < snip >
>>>
>>> I notice that you compelely evaded addressing the issue of: the body
>>> fragments found on the roofs of nearby buildings. How do you explain these=
>>?
>>>
>>> FF
>>
>>Well, let me think for a minute. 2 planes, filled with passengers,
>>crew and terrorists, hit the Towers, one at a time. The impact caused
>>a fireball to explode out the far side of each Tower. Are we supposed
>>to believe that the incredible destructive force of these impacts left
>>the bodies of the passengers, et. al., in a neat pile within the
>>Towers?
>
>
>
>
> DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and
> 4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have
> been linked to a single person.
>
> The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked
> planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12
> from Flight 175, which hit the south tower. Source
>
> - New York Daily News, Sept 11, 2002
Too bad your "source" is well known for
publishing misinformation as truth! Too bad
they don't bother to safeguard their own credibility
by fact checking the stuff they feed the public.
But that will do for a start. You do realize that
you also have no credibility here? You have
told too many lies for any rational person to
believe what you say without fact checking on
their own.
Al Dykes
<Ob...@real.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:18:32 -0500, "John P."
><Jo...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>"Reality Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in a message
>>
>>> I notice that you compelely evaded addressing the issue of: the body
>>> fragments found on the roofs of nearby buildings. How do you explain
>>> these?
>>
>>A big plane full of people traveling in excess of 400 mph hit a building
>>full of people, and the fuel in the plane exploded. People in a plane
>>traveling in excess of 400 mph, are, oddly enough, also traveling in excess
>>of 400 mph. If you had bothered to learn basic physics, you'd know that a
>>body in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an opposing force.
>>Thus, when the plane crashed into the building, as the plane was being
>>ripped to shreds, so were the people inside the plane - but it was all still
>>moving forward at 400+ mph, and, admittedly, decelerating. Additionally,
>>explosions tend to tear human bodies into pieces, as well as blow them
>>outward from the explosion.
>>
>>That you think finding bone and body fragments on neighboring rooftops is
>>some big mystery indicates you completely lack sufficient knowledge to even
>>begin discussing the most basic aspects of this event.
>>
>
> Hahaha... Better recheck your trajectories, look
>for evidence that anything solid came through the
Lots of plane parts and body parts were foudn north of the Sout htower.
See
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911
Al Dykes
That clip is from here, Documentation for dozens of plane parts and
body parts found all over lower Manhattan on 9/11. All sources are
cited.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911
So the News made it up and the hundreds of technicians and Medical
Examiners offices people, nationwide that worked on DNA of body parts
with the goal of associating them with a name and returning those
parts for burial actually didn't do anything and didn't say anything
to anyone, for 6 years when saw a bogus story is in the press?
Any theory that can only be defended by including more people to it
when presented with facts, is a Konspiracy.
All the press reported this stuff ona day-by-day basis after 9/11/2001
and the people involved read that news. SO did their friedsn and
falimy members. In 7 years, nobody involved has polnted out a
contradiction beteen the news reports and what they saw and did.
An estimated 70,000 people had direct involvement as first responders
or investigators on and after 9/11. None of tehm have become part of
the "Truth Movement".
The "Truth Movement" doesn't dispute the massive public record for the
events of 9/11. Worthy of Orwell's memory hole, they try to deny that
a public record exists to be fact-checked and to use to fact-check the
made-up shit that Truth Movement people parrot. People that were not
in NYC, Washington, DC, or Western PA on 9/11 and afterwords (or were
to young to watch the news) don't realize that about 70,000 people
worked on the recovery and thousands of reporters working for 100s of
news outlets told their stories, daily in the local media. The
workers saw, nightly, their stories and nobody ever said that the
media got it wrong in significant ways. The "Truth Movement" would
have you believe that the stories that anyone can get via computer
today never happened.
Al Dykes
<Ob...@real.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:35:23 -0700 (PDT), Disneygeek
><edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 14, 2:57 pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>>> "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:2vSdncNNPc2zRc_V...@supernews.com...
>>>
>>> < snip >
>>>
>>> I notice that you compelely evaded addressing the issue of: the body
>>> fragments found on the roofs of nearby buildings. How do you explain these?
>>>
>>> FF
>>
>>Well, let me think for a minute. 2 planes, filled with passengers,
>>crew and terrorists, hit the Towers, one at a time. The impact caused
>>a fireball to explode out the far side of each Tower. Are we supposed
>>to believe that the incredible destructive force of these impacts left
>>the bodies of the passengers, et. al., in a neat pile within the
>>Towers?
>
> For starters: Where did you get the idea
>that both planes completely penetrated the
>towers from one side to the other?
"completely" is irrelevant.
Plane parts and body parts consistent with the flight paths were found
north of the south tower and south of the north tower.
See
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911
For specifics.
Disneygeek
>
> - Show quoted text -
I didn't say the jets entirely penetrated the Towers. I'm sorry if it
appeared I did. However, loose articles (such as people) within the
jets certainly kept moving when the jets impacted.
Freedom Fighter
news:276db$4855df0b$26...@news.teranews.com...
> danny burstein wrote:
>> In <f6j5k.48162$102....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Freedom
>> Fighter" <lib...@once.net> writes:
>>
>>>> Do these people also fail to realize that the weight of the upper
>>>> portion of the building had a bit to do with the collapse? Let's hit
>>>> FF in the knee with a baseball bat, and see if he falls down.
>>
>>> You would never dare try it in person, coward!
> Has anyone ever noticed that Danny Burstein has the same IP address as
> Al Dykes and posts within a couple of minutes of each other.
No doubt these two government coverup SHILLS work in the same office, even
sharing the same computer.
Either that, or we see here one multi-identity shill feebly trying to make
his mental molehill look like a mountain.
Pathetic indeed!
danny burstein
>> Has anyone ever noticed that Danny Burstein has the same IP address as
>> Al Dykes and posts within a couple of minutes of each other.
>No doubt these two government coverup SHILLS work in the same office, even
>sharing the same computer.
>Either that, or we see here one multi-identity shill feebly trying to make
>his mental molehill look like a mountain.
>Pathetic indeed!
Poor, delusional, coward.
Tell you what. If Al is game, when you finally
decide to pick up that MetroCard, I'll ask him if
he'd like to be at the meeting.
Or are you going to hide behind that yellwo streak again?
Freedom Fighter
The planes did not hit a brick wall that stopped them in an instant. They
penetrated most of the way through the buildings, which greatly limited the
maximum G-forces of deceleration.
danny burstein
>You're talking about the planes hitting people. I'm talking about
>people IN those planes going from 400+ MPH to 0 MPH in a surprisingly
>short period.
You're talking delusional paranoia again. A shame, truely, given
that you've at least some common sense (your NYS Lottery postings,
for example).
Al Dykes
danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <BJy5k.98011$SV4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> writes:
>
>>> Has anyone ever noticed that Danny Burstein has the same IP address as
>>> Al Dykes and posts within a couple of minutes of each other.
>
>>No doubt these two government coverup SHILLS work in the same office, even
>>sharing the same computer.
>>Either that, or we see here one multi-identity shill feebly trying to make
>>his mental molehill look like a mountain.
>>Pathetic indeed!
>
>Poor, delusional, coward.
>
>Tell you what. If Al is game, when you finally
>decide to pick up that MetroCard, I'll ask him if
>he'd like to be at the meeting.
>
>Or are you going to hide behind that yellwo streak again?
Count me in, and maybe someone with genuine advanced engineering
credentials will show up, or two, or three.
danny burstein
>>
>>Poor, delusional, coward.
>>
>>Tell you what. If Al is game, when you finally
>>decide to pick up that MetroCard, I'll ask him if
>>he'd like to be at the meeting.
>>
>>Or are you going to hide behind that yellwo streak again?
>Count me in, and maybe someone with genuine advanced engineering
>credentials will show up, or two, or three.
Make it the Second Ave Deli, which isn't on 2nd Ave
anymore, but is still a great deli.
Freedom Fighter
Get some college-level training in physics and chemistry and become your own
expert.
Education does wonderful things, like enabling people to THINK FOR
THEMSELVES.
That's why the fascists couldn't care less if the public is undereducated or
miseducated.
> If HIGH EXPLOSIVES were used to instigate the collapse,
why weren't explosions heard DURING the onset of the collapse as has
been shown in every other _real_ controlled demolition?
There is testimony that such explosions WERE heard, including one in the
basement area just BEFORE the plane hit. Seismographic recordings likewise
show spikes of energy immediately BEFORE the collapses began.
> And if
thermate was used, why wasn't the amount of thermate necessary to
cause this much damage visually obvious to everyone around?
The surrounding structure concealed the burning thermate from view, but
there exist photos showing MOLTEN IRON (a product of thermate combustion)
cascading from one of the towers as it collapses. Huge pools of such molten
iron were found under all three collapsed buildings, with no other possible
source than the thermate used.
> For that
matter WHERE have you ever seen or heard of termate being used in
controlled demolition jobs?
Easy to find information, if you bother to look for it.
Al Dykes
Cite?
"Huge pools of such molten iron were found under all three collapsed buildings"
And nobody noticed.
george
> In article <%1z5k.50090$102.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>
> >The surrounding structure concealed the burning thermate from view, but
> >there exist photos showing MOLTEN IRON (a product of thermate combustion)
> >cascading from one of the towers as it collapses. Huge pools of such molten
> >iron were found under all three collapsed buildings, with no other possible
>
> "there exist photos showing MOLTEN IRON"
>
> Cite?
>
> "Huge pools of such molten iron were found under all three collapsed buildings"
>
> And nobody noticed.
Probably hidden by the pools of molten steel :-)
Where do these kooks get this crap from ?
Iarnrod
> "Disneygeek" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1554db26-e8f2-47e1...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> > "Disneygeek" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:452c7864-197e-4e9d...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > > This was all explained in the original post, which you apparently didn't
> > > bother to read before you responded here. Before responding further, read
> > > up
> > > about explosives - low order and high order. Some of the phenomena of the
> > > 9/11 INSIDE JOB false-flag attacks clearly required HIGH explosives and
> > > thermate (an incendiary used in controlled demolition to cut through steel
> > > columns) to produce.
That is not possible. There was no thermate or thermite used. There
were no high explosives used. They are neither invisible nor silent
nor odorless. They were not present on 9/11. Controlled demolition is
a physical impossibility as a result of this.
> > Says who? Where are the experts claiming that the explosions of the
> > planes could not have caused the damage generated? What are there
> > creditials?
>
> Get some college-level training in physics and chemistry and become your own
> expert.
> Education does wonderful things, like enabling people to THINK FOR
> THEMSELVES.
You should try it, instead of guzzling kookspew without question!
> That's why the fascists couldn't care less if the public is undereducated or
> miseducated.
That describes truthers to a T. Educated people reject the phony
physically impossible controlled demolition kooker nonsense.
> > If HIGH EXPLOSIVES were used to instigate the collapse,
> > why weren't explosions heard DURING the onset of the collapse as has
> > been shown in every other _real_ controlled demolition?
>
> There is testimony that such explosions WERE heard…
No there isn’t. You are improperly attributing witnesses who heard
loud noises and explosions with “controlled demolition” explosions. A
car blowing up in a parking lot is not a controlled demolition high
explosive going off inside a building. Big concrete and steel beams
falling down and making o=loud noises do not constitute controlled
demolition explosions.
> including one in the basement area just BEFORE the plane hit.
That is a flat out lie.
> Seismographic recordings likewise
> show spikes of energy immediately BEFORE the collapses began.
No they don’t.
> > And if
> > thermate was used, why wasn't the amount of thermate necessary to
> > cause this much damage visually obvious to everyone around?
>
> The surrounding structure concealed the burning thermate from view…
You cannot conceal a thermate reaction, honey. It would have burned
through the building. It also emits brilliant light and acrid
yellowish smoke. None of this happened on any of the floors, let alone
the flows below the impact zones where thermate reactions would have
been plainly visible had they occurred.
> but
> there exist photos showing MOLTEN IRON (a product of thermate combustion)
> cascading from one of the towers as it collapses.
That’s a flat out lie.
> Huge pools of such molten
> iron were found under all three collapsed buildings, with no other possible
> source than the thermate used.
That’s a flat out lie. Nothing of the sort happened or was observed
under ANY of the buildings let alone all three. And even if it had,
thermate would not possibly be a cause. Read up on it, Reality
Fighter.
> > For that
> > matter WHERE have you ever seen or heard of thermate being used in
> > controlled demolition jobs?
>
> Easy to find information, if you bother to look for it.
Then why don’t you? Because it contradicts you.
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
>Get some college-level training in physics and chemistry and become your own
>expert.
You would be familiar with that. NOT.
>Education does wonderful things, like enabling people to THINK FOR
>THEMSELVES.
>That's why the fascists couldn't care less if the public is undereducated or
>miseducated.
>
>> If HIGH EXPLOSIVES were used to instigate the collapse,
>why weren't explosions heard DURING the onset of the collapse as has
>been shown in every other _real_ controlled demolition?
>
>There is testimony that such explosions WERE heard, including one in the
>basement area just BEFORE the plane hit.
Except that claim is made only by one person and not substantiated by
anyone else. And that one person neglected to make that claim when he
had a chance to do so with NIST. Wonder why?
> Seismographic recordings likewise
>show spikes of energy immediately BEFORE the collapses began.
No, actually, they don't.
>> And if
>thermate was used, why wasn't the amount of thermate necessary to
>cause this much damage visually obvious to everyone around?
>
>The surrounding structure concealed the burning thermate from view, but
>there exist photos showing MOLTEN IRON (a product of thermate combustion)
Really? And where is your scientific analysis of a sample of that
material? Or are you claiming to be such an expert that you can
identify the material as iron merely by looking at it? Amazing.
>cascading from one of the towers as it collapses. Huge pools of such molten
>iron were found under all three collapsed buildings, with no other possible
>source than the thermate used.
>
>> For that
>matter WHERE have you ever seen or heard of termate being used in
>controlled demolition jobs?
>
>Easy to find information, if you bother to look for it.
So when are you going to start?
Al Dykes
The engineering of the space shuttles and the accident has absolutely
nothing to do with understanding the WTC towers and the planes that
hit them.
>feet above sea level, torn apart by forces exerted
>on the hull. But... Hey... Let's look at another
>part of the issue. Namely, can you find pictures
>of the parts of the space shuttle? How big is the
>biggest fragment? How small is the smallest part
You can't if you don't look, and if the pictures are not on the
Internets, that doesn't mean that fragemnts were not recovered.
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
>"Disneygeek" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Yeah, to something like 60 g's.
age...@justicespammail.com
>The space shuttle didn't burn up or explode!
Wrong. It burned up on reentry.
>It broke apart in oxygen starved space some 400,000
>feet above sea level, torn apart by forces exerted
>on the hull.
If you would like to read about it, here's a pretty good account:
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hscov0127,0,442476.story?coll=ny-health-headlines
> But... Hey... Let's look at another
>part of the issue. Namely, can you find pictures
>of the parts of the space shuttle? How big is the
>biggest fragment? How small is the smallest part
>they found?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=8172
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030415breach/
"More than 70,000 pieces of shuttle debris have been recovered,
representing about 78,000 pounds or roughly 36 percent of Columbia's
dry weight."
Then there's the mission patch that was found:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/03/facts.shuttle/index.html
>Once you answer that, and post links to your photos,
>then we can discuss the WTC planes lack of debris.
There was no lack of debris from the WTC planes.
SHOOTER586
> why weren't explosions heard DURING the onset of the collapse as has
> been shown in every other _real_ controlled demolition?
>
> There is testimony that such explosions WERE heard, including one in the
> basement area just BEFORE the plane hit. Seismographic recordings likewise
> show spikes of energy immediately BEFORE the collapses began.
This "testimony" changed from the first time he (The Amazing
Rodriguez) stated that he heard the explosion that caused great liquid
burns to his friend in the elevator, to hearing explosions before the
impacts (not quite sure how he knew this).
His exploits (including his lies about saving people and being the
last one out of the towers) are well documented.
> > And if
>
> thermate was used, why wasn't the amount of thermate necessary to
> cause this much damage visually obvious to everyone around?
>
> The surrounding structure concealed the burning thermate from view, but
> there exist photos showing MOLTEN IRON (a product of thermate combustion)
> cascading from one of the towers as it collapses. Huge pools of such molten
> iron were found under all three collapsed buildings, with no other possible
> source than the thermate used.
How did you determine that it was iron, when even the CTists making
the original claim stated it was just metal? Are you claiming to know
more than those creating this talking point? Also, the "molten pools"
cannot be caused by thermate since it doesn't retain heat longer than
a few minutes. So, your claim that "no other possible source" is a
lie. Can you show ANY historical reference to thermate causing pools
of molten iron in controlled demolitions? You would think it existed
in every one based on your claims.
> > For that
>
> matter WHERE have you ever seen or heard of termate being used in
> controlled demolition jobs?
>
> Easy to find information, if you bother to look for it
In other words, you couldn't find any? Remember, if you make a claim,
it is your burdon of proof to support it. Saying it is out there when
it isn't shows you couldn't find any. I noticed that you never sourced
any of your information, so it seems you are either plagiarizing it or
are guessing. Which is it?
Al Dykes
Freedom Fighter <lib...@once.net> wrote:
What are your credentials?
Iarnrod
> "Disneygeek" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > If HIGH EXPLOSIVES were used to instigate the collapse,
> > why weren't explosions heard DURING the onset of the collapse as has
> > been shown in every other _real_ controlled demolition?
>
> There is testimony that such explosions WERE heard, including one in the
> basement area just BEFORE the plane hit. Seismographic recordings likewise
> show spikes of energy immediately BEFORE the collapses began.
Uh, moron, have you stopped to think about this?
There is no way on earth that even if there WERE an explosion in the
basement before the plane hit (which a friggin janitor in the basement
would have NO idea of since he can't see when the plane hits -- he's
in the basement DUH!) could be a controlled demolition explosion.
Controlled demolition explosions aren't set off more than an hour
before the collapse, ya idjit. They occur to *initiate* a collapse.
THAT'S what you have to look for to support your theory, and that's
where it falls apart. Random explosions occurring an hour or 30
minutes or 15 minutes or even ONE minute before the collapses cannot
possibly be controlled demolition explosives.
Yeesh, the stupidity of kookers sometimes is overwhelming.
Al Dykes
Freedom Fighter <lib...@once.net> wrote:
The idea that there was an explosion powerful to be recorded as a
Seismic event and yet not reported as heard by EVERYONE, a million
people, in lower Manhattan, is silly.
FF; There was no explosion heard by a large number of people at any
time on 9/11 that wasn't part of a building hitting the ground.
The 1993 bombing, 1,000 pounds of TNT located several floors below the
street, was heard all over the 16 acre WTC complex and for blocks
around and yet not large enough to any structural damage.
danny burstein
>The 1993 bombing, 1,000 pounds of TNT located several floors below the
>street, was heard all over the 16 acre WTC complex and for blocks
>around and yet not large enough to any structural damage.
Not TNT. homemade stuff starting with urea nitrate...
Al Dykes
danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <g374jn$fo7$1...@panix5.panix.com> ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) writes:
>
>>The 1993 bombing, 1,000 pounds of TNT located several floors below the
>>street, was heard all over the 16 acre WTC complex and for blocks
>>around and yet not large enough to any structural damage.
>
>Not TNT. homemade stuff starting with urea nitrate...
>
I get tired of typing "approximately" and "equivalent to" and it
doesn't get read by the people that need to read it, anyway.
Freedom Fighter
news:e944d834-ba9f-4cb6...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
If not iron, what else could it have been? Iron was the ONLY metal present
in large quantities - as structural steel. And as the structural steel could
not have been brought to white heat and melted by the fires, it must have
come from thermate combustion - the ONLY possible source of such high
temperatures.
> Also, the "molten pools"
cannot be caused by thermate since it doesn't retain heat longer than
a few minutes.
UNTRUE.
You really have no knowledge of chemistry or physics, do you?
The vast amount of heat energy generated by the highly exothermic thermate
combustion had to go SOMEWHERE. As the molten iron was buried by debris, it
took WEEKS for a significant amount of cooling to occur.
> So, your claim that "no other possible source" is a lie.
No, YOUR claim that "the 'molten pools' cannot be caused by thermate since
it doesn't retain heat longer than
a few minutes" is a lie! If not a lie, it is a revelation of ignorance that
disqualifies you from being taken seriously on this subject.
> Can you show ANY historical reference to thermate causing pools
of molten iron in controlled demolitions? You would think it existed
in every one based on your claims.
Obviously you never attended a high school chemistry class and thus never
saw the classic demonstration of the combustion of thermite, which produces
a white-hot glob of molten iron. Thermate is thermite with sulfur and other
ingredients added to lower the ignition temperature and make the substance
formable.
> > For that
>
> matter WHERE have you ever seen or heard of termate being used in
> controlled demolition jobs?
>
> Easy to find information, if you bother to look for it
In other words, you couldn't find any?
No, YOU didn't bother to look for any!
I am not responsible for your education!
> Remember, if you make a claim,
it is your burdon of proof to support it. Saying it is out there when
it isn't shows you couldn't find any. I noticed that you never sourced
any of your information, so it seems you are either plagiarizing it or
are guessing. Which is it?
I claim that the air is mostly nitrogen, but I cannot prove it - not here at
least.
You can however look up that information and see I am right.
I noticed that you never researched anything about high explosives,
thermate, demolition, etc.
I guess you just DON'T WANT to know, just as most of the Sheeple want to
keep hiding their heads in the sand while the fascist Neo-KKKon$ continue
destroying America, just as they destroyed almost 3000 American lives on
9/11.
FOOLS! Fail to learn the lessons of history, and history surely repeats!
Ever hear of the Reichstag fire, Sheeple?
John P.
> There is testimony that such explosions WERE heard, including one in the
> basement area just BEFORE the plane hit.
There is no evidence of any explosions prior to the planes hitting.
> Seismographic recordings likewise show spikes of energy immediately BEFORE
> the collapses began.
The seiemic records do not show a spike before the collapses begin. They
show exactly what one would expect to see from a collapsing building - a
gradual build of the event.
> The surrounding structure concealed the burning thermate from view,
The "surrounding structure" was what was holding up the building. It was
what failed and caused the collapse. If thermite were used, it would have to
have been used to destroy the perimeter columns - which would be highly
visible. None of the video evidence supports such an outlandish theory.
>> For that matter WHERE have you ever seen or heard of termate being used
>> in
>> controlled demolition jobs?
> Easy to find information, if you bother to look for it.
Which means it will be easy for you to provide a few links.
John P.
> If not iron, what else could it have been? Iron was the ONLY metal present
> in large quantities - as structural steel. And as the structural steel
> could not have been brought to white heat and melted by the fires, it must
> have come from thermate combustion - the ONLY possible source of such high
> temperatures.
I highly suggest you take your own advice on becoming aducated and thinking
for yourself. Iron was not the only metal present in large quantites.
Thermie is not the only possible source of high temeratures. I've seen you
repeat these uneducated claims on a number of occasions. It only serves to
make you appear as uneducated as the kook site author you are parroting.
>> Also, the "molten pools" cannot be caused by
>> thermate since it doesn't retain heat longer than
>> a few minutes.
> UNTRUE
True.
.
Disneygeek
>
> - Show quoted text -
But the people inside were still travelling at the full speed of the
jet. So they were ripped by the shapnel of what had been the front of
the plane, and ripped more by travelling through the hull of the
building and out the wall through the hole left by the fireball. To be
deposited around the various builidngs in their path.
Disneygeek
No. I'm asking YOU for verifiable information. Information from people
who are trained in these fields. I'm asking for it, but I'm not going
to hold my breath waiting, that's for certain. (Incidently, my
apologies to the "netkops" here. I try not to type things like "there"
for "their." Sorry.)
> > If HIGH EXPLOSIVES were used to instigate the collapse,
> why weren't explosions heard DURING the onset of the collapse as has
> been shown in every other _real_ controlled demolition?
>
> There is testimony that such explosions WERE heard, including one in the
> basement area just BEFORE the plane hit. Seismographic recordings likewise
> show spikes of energy immediately BEFORE the collapses began.
Yeah, but those weren't demolition charges given by the fact that the
Towers did not fall immediately after they were heard. NO demolition
charge-style explosions were heard at the moment of collapse. No
demoliiton-style explosions were recorded on the recordings of the
Towers collapsing. Explosions of that nature should have been heard
for blocks around and NOTHING was reported.
>
> > And if
>
> thermate was used, why wasn't the amount of thermate necessary to
> cause this much damage visually obvious to everyone around?
>
> The surrounding structure concealed the burning thermate from view, but
> there exist photos showing MOLTEN IRON (a product of thermate combustion)
> cascading from one of the towers as it collapses. Huge pools of such molten
> iron were found under all three collapsed buildings, with no other possible
> source than the thermate used.
The Towers were a cage of steel rods and glass panels. Any thermate
that worked on the perimeter would have been visible through those
glass panels.
>
> > For that
>
> matter WHERE have you ever seen or heard of termate being used in
> controlled demolition jobs?
>
> Easy to find information, if you bother to look for it.
Since it's your argument, then it shouldn't be very difficult for you
to verify it.
Disneygeek
> In <g374jn$fo...@panix5.panix.com> ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) writes:
>
> >The 1993 bombing, 1,000 pounds of TNT located several floors below the
> >street, was heard all over the 16 acre WTC complex and for blocks
> >around and yet not large enough to any structural damage.
>
> Not TNT. homemade stuff starting with urea nitrate...
Immaterial, whatever it was made of, it was LOUD!
Disneygeek
> In <_My5k.50056$102.24...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> writes:
>
> >You're talking about the planes hitting people. I'm talking about
> >people IN those planes going from 400+ MPH to 0 MPH in a surprisingly
> >short period.
>
> You're talking delusional paranoia again. A shame, truely, given
> that you've at least some common sense (your NYS Lottery postings,
> for example).
No, the post about people in the planes going from 400+ MPH to 0 MPH
was me, not FF.
BDK
Jo...@nospam.com says...
> "Reality Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in a message
>
> > If not iron, what else could it have been? Iron was the ONLY metal present
> > in large quantities - as structural steel. And as the structural steel
> > could not have been brought to white heat and melted by the fires, it must
> > have come from thermate combustion - the ONLY possible source of such high
> > temperatures.
>
> I highly suggest you take your own advice on becoming aducated and thinking
> for yourself. Iron was not the only metal present in large quantites.
> Thermie is not the only possible source of high temeratures. I've seen you
> repeat these uneducated claims on a number of occasions. It only serves to
> make you appear as uneducated as the kook site author you are parroting.
How DARE you question the sacred kooksites!!!
>
> >> Also, the "molten pools" cannot be caused by
> >> thermate since it doesn't retain heat longer than
> >> a few minutes.
>
> > UNTRUE
>
> True.
>
The poor kook can't even figure that out! All he needs to do is a search
on the net and he can watch rail being welded, and see that the workers
take the mold off very soon after the welding is done. If his thinking,
well, whatever you want to call it, was correct, they would have to
leave the mold on for quite some time, or the steel puck the thermite
welded would still be molten. But it's not molten, the workers start
grinding on it almost immediately after taking the mold off.
Or is the poor kook claiming the WTC thermite was super-special-duper?
--
BDK
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>(Incidently, my
>apologies to the "netkops" here. I try not to type things like "there"
>for "their." Sorry.)
No need to apologise. I only point it out to Seon when he does it again and
again and again...
Shill #2
--
Pfft...English! Who needs that? I'm never going to England.
Homer J. Simpson
Iarnrod
> "SHOOTER586" <shooter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e944d834-ba9f-4cb6...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 16, 12:20 pm, "Reality Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
> > > > And if
> > > > thermate was used, why wasn't the amount of thermate necessary to
> > > > cause this much damage visually obvious to everyone around?
> > > >
> > > The surrounding structure concealed the burning thermate from view, but
> > > there exist photos showing MOLTEN IRON (a product of thermate combustion)
> > > cascading from one of the towers as it collapses. Huge pools of such
> > > molten
> > > iron were found under all three collapsed buildings, with no other
> > > possible
> > > source than the thermate used.
> > How did you determine that it was iron, when even the CTists making
> > the original claim stated it was just metal? Are you claiming to know
> > more than those creating this talking point?
>
> If not iron, what else could it have been?
It could not have been iron. It was from the batteries known to have
been stationed in that location of the building. Try to keep up.
> Iron was the ONLY metal present
> in large quantities - as structural steel. And as the structural steel could
> not have been brought to white heat and melted by the fires, it must have
> come from thermate combustion - the ONLY possible source of such high
> temperatures.
False. Thermate is impossible to have been used here. It would have
lit the skyscrapers up like the Fourth of July. That didn’t happen,
hence no thermate.
> > Also, the "molten pools"
> > cannot be caused by thermate since it doesn't retain heat longer than
> > a few minutes.
>
> UNTRUE.
Wrong, honey lambs. It’s true. Thermate would not melt huge quantities
of any steel nor keep it molten for “weeks” in huge pools – none of
which existed anyway. It’s like you’re making up lies to justify your
fabrications, none of which matters.
> You really have no knowledge of chemistry or physics, do you?
More than you, moron, quite clearly.
> The vast amount of heat energy generated by the highly exothermic thermate
> combustion had to go SOMEWHERE. As the molten iron was buried by debris, it
> took WEEKS for a significant amount of cooling to occur.
Wrong. There was no molten anything.
> > So, your claim that "no other possible source" is a lie.
>
> No, YOUR claim that "the 'molten pools' cannot be caused by thermate since
> it doesn't retain heat longer than
> a few minutes" is a lie! If not a lie, it is a revelation of ignorance that
> disqualifies you from being taken seriously on this subject.
BWAHAHAHAHHAAAAA!!! This from a proven moron like you!!
BWAHAHAAHAAA!!! No one takes you seriously, kook.
You can’t even post to usenet correctly without munging up the
attributions.
> > Can you show ANY historical reference to thermate causing pools
> > of molten iron in controlled demolitions? You would think it existed
> > in every one based on your claims.
>
> Obviously you never attended a high school chemistry class and thus never
> saw the classic demonstration of the combustion of thermite, which produces
> a white-hot glob of molten iron. Thermate is thermite with sulfur and other
> ingredients added to lower the ignition temperature and make the substance
> formable.
Uh, moron, he asked for evidence it has been used in *controlled
demolitions.* It hasn’t, because it can’t be reliably controlled to
bring down a tall structure.
> > > > For that
> > > > matter WHERE have you ever seen or heard of termate being used in
> > > > controlled demolition jobs?
> > >
> > > Easy to find information, if you bother to look for it
> >
> > In other words, you couldn't find any?
>
> No, YOU didn't bother to look for any!
> I am not responsible for your education!
BWAHAHAAAHHAAA!! It’s obvious you can’t find any and are ducking the
question. I’ll make it easy for you – we already know there is no such
evidence.
> > Remember, if you make a claim,
> > it is your burdon of proof to support it. Saying it is out there when
> > it isn't shows you couldn't find any. I noticed that you never sourced
> > any of your information, so it seems you are either plagiarizing it or
> > are guessing. Which is it?
>
> I claim that the air is mostly nitrogen, but I cannot prove it - not here at
> least.
BWAHAHAHAA!! AT least there is documentary evidence you could cite,
dipshit moron. But you CANNOT find evidence of thermate being used in
controlled demolitions of tall buildings. Because it is not used.
> You can however look up that information and see I am right.
We can look up information proving you’re a moron.
> I noticed that you never researched anything about high explosives,
> thermate, demolition, etc.
> I guess you just DON'T WANT to know, just as most of the Sheeple want to
> keep hiding their heads in the sand while the fascist Neo-KKKon$ continue
> destroying America, just as they destroyed almost 3000 American lives on
> 9/11.
You’re really an idiot.
> FOOLS! Fail to learn the lessons of history, and history surely repeats!
> Ever hear of the Reichstag fire, Sheeple?
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!! Are you really so stupid as to think that the
Reichstag fire is actually evidence of anything regarding 9/11!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAA!! I could cite counterexamples of terrorist attacks
and claim that was proof 9/11 was done by al Qaeda!! BWAHAHAAHAAAA!!!
What an idiot!
animal02
> On Jun 16, 9:06 pm, "Reality Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>> "SHOOTER586" <shooter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:e944d834-ba9f-4cb6...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jun 16, 12:20 pm, "Reality Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>>>>> And if
>>>>> thermate was used, why wasn't the amount of thermate necessary to
>>>>> cause this much damage visually obvious to everyone around?
>>>>>
>>>> The surrounding structure concealed the burning thermate from view, but
>>>> there exist photos showing MOLTEN IRON (a product of thermate combustion)
>>>> cascading from one of the towers as it collapses. Huge pools of such
>>>> molten
>>>> iron were found under all three collapsed buildings, with no other
>>>> possible
>>>> source than the thermate used.
>>> How did you determine that it was iron, when even the CTists making
>>> the original claim stated it was just metal? Are you claiming to know
>>> more than those creating this talking point?
>> If not iron, what else could it have been?
>
> It could not have been iron. It was from the batteries known to have
> been stationed in that location of the building. Try to keep up.
Now you sound as foolish as reality fighter.
There were a a number of materials the molten material could have been,
Aluminum from the aircraft, various low garde metals used in furniture,
etc, etc.
Al Dykes
There was no molten steel in the pile, not on 9/11, not ever.
What came out of one tower was aluminum or possibly lead, with the
color affected by all the crap and other light metal that came out
with it. It was the floor and corner of the tower were the 100+ tons
of aircraft aluminum would up and where there happened to be many tons
of uninterruptible power supply batteries. The jet had hundreds of
oxygen generators onboard tha could have aded enough heat.
In this video, FDNY runs some experiments by burning an apartment
building that is to be demolished, anyway after putting instruments in
it.
FDNY fire tests Govorner Island,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8682781475859149895&hl=en
The Fire chief cites 1700F temps measured in the apartment fire.
Aluminum melts at about ~1100F and contamination always lower the
melting point when compared to t he pure element.
Ob...@real.com
Hmmm... Let's see:
The plane that hit the south tower, approached
and hits the south wall, penetrates it completely,
then exits through the east wall... Or, rather
the fireball does. Now the body parts, or the
bits thereof, are found on the Deutch building, located
across the street to the south of the south tower.
Hmmm... Their momentum didn't carry them very
far foward. Yet, as we watch the fireball, we see it
expand and we see it decending. We even see
burning strands of fuel falling down to almost ground
level. Funny, but shouldn't solid debris have beaten
these burning strands of liquid to the ground? Shouldn't
the wake vortexes of the falling solid debris make them
highly visible? I mean, these pictures were taken with
telescopic lenses, which is why we can see objects
as small as a hand or, in some cases even smaller.
Yet, for all the 100 tons of metal that should have
peirced the east wall, for all of the furniture and other
effects (like those server cabinets) that should have
been pushed out through that hole. None of it is
seen plunging to the ground. ONLY the fireball is
visible throughout the whole time! Oh well, I guess
100 aircraft just disappear completely on impact,
hundreds of miles of wire and cables, wheel
assemblies and all, and all of the cockpit equiptment,
as well as passenger seats, all, simply disintegrated
and vanished.
Yeah, right!
Al Dykes
How do you know that those body bits are not from Flt 11, heading
south and possibly occupants of the the North tower?
Jumpers from the South tower landing on the roof of Deutch building is
said to be a possibility. The two buildings were really close
together.
Iarnrod
How about you STFU when it comes to me and my posts and keep your eyes
on the fuckin’ kookers here, huh?
Or are you saying that what was falling from the south tower WAS
molten iron? If so, then YOU’RE the one sounding as foolish as Reality
Fighter. I know you like to pick on me once in a while because our
politics disagree, but really, what I said was absolutely correct –
see Al Dykes’ post just below yours. That stuff was not molten iron,
and that’s all I said it wasn’t. And we know there was an array of
batteries in a UPS system for one of the tenants on that very floor.
I never said it couldn’t have been molten *anything,* honey. Stop
letting the fact that I think Boosh is a moron and criminal president
make you go off on periodic rants that are factually wrong.
4PeaceMirelle
Mr. Keenan, I was reading on the net that you are a philanthropist, as
is your wife.
How do you reconcile giving millions to charity and defending a
terrorist state that has put the Palestinians in the largest open air
prison in world - Gaza, cut off food and fuel supplies, etc.
Collective punishment is not permitted by the Geneva Convention and
all other bodies of International law.
As a philanthropist, I would hope that you give those millions a year
out of seeing the need for donations due to seeing the suffering, and
by donating you are acting from the conviction that if a person is
able to alleviate suffering financially to do so. I would hope it is
not done to social climb and hop nob with the "haves" and "have
mores".
BTW, tell your wife to stop with the Botox already, aging is natural.
Botox is embarrassing to look at on a person's face, although the
person is not aware that people find it so. Usually, people feel sorry
for the person for resorting to Botox.
http://chitchatzionist.livejournal.com/
Mirelle
> "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ngA4k.82952$SV4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > BLOWN TO BITS: PROOF of the 9/11 INSIDE JOB
>
> > The sudden, complete, straight down at free fall speed collapse of steel
> > framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
>
> But which was badly damged by debris and burned uncontrollably.
>
> > is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's minor fires
> > and debris damage
>
> The fires and debris damage were anything but minor.
>
> > could not account for this collapse, which had all the earmarks of
> > controlled demolition by explosives.
>
> Only if you interpret "none" as "all".
>
> Which you are apparently bound and determined to do.
>
> > Such demolitions take many days or weeks to set up - not the few hours
> > between the attacks and the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be
> > put in place BEFOREHAND,
>
> An event for which there is no evidence. You are involving hundreds or
> thousands of people over a long period of time, requiring their complicity.
>
> If you can present any evidence that the work needed to ship and install
> these explosives was actually done, present it now.
>
> > lending credibility to the use of previously placed explosives to bring
> > down the towers as well, which like the damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank
> > building would probably have remained standing.
>
> > Government-paid propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in
> > psychological denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what
> > it obviously was, <snippage>
>
> What it obviously was, is not what you claim. It wasn't a controlled
> demolition, by any means.
>
> But I don't think that you even believe what you claim. If you did, you'd
> be presenting your evidence where it counts, in civil court.
>
> Why don't you tell us - honestly - why it is that you continue to present
> this completely unsupportable crap?
>
> -pk
animal02
Free hint to the clueless.......you are not the moderator of this NG,
I will reply to any post I want. Interesting that you resort to troofer
like tactics.
>
> Or are you saying that what was falling from the south tower WAS
> molten iron?
No, are you reading impaired as well?
>If so, then YOU’RE the one sounding as foolish as Reality
> Fighter.
Learn to read.
>I know you like to pick on me once in a while because our
> politics disagree,
I could not care less WRT to your politics.
>but really, what I said was absolutely correct –
No it wasn't. You have no proof to your claim.
> see Al Dykes’ post just below yours.
Which is far different than your claim
> That stuff was not molten iron,
> and that’s all I said it wasn’t. And we know there was an array of
> batteries in a UPS system for one of the tenants on that very floor.
You have no proof as to what the material was. Claiming it was a
certain material with no proof puts you on the same level as the troofers.
>
> I never said it couldn’t have been molten *anything,* honey.
Despite your condescending attitude.......what you said was
"It was from the batteries known to have been stationed in that location
of the building"
You have no proof of that.
>Stop
> letting the fact that I think Boosh is a moron and criminal president
> make you go off on periodic rants that are factually wrong.
<snicker> stop believing that someone points out your errors simply
because of your politics (rather narcissistic .....it puts you one the
same level as troofers.
Iarnrod
Keep your “free hints” – they’re worth the price <snicker> and shove
‘em up your ass.
> you are not the moderator of this NG
Didn’t claim to be, I just said STFU because you are being an asshole
and forgetting what I told you a while back when you pulled this shit
before… keep your eyes on the kookers. This is alt.conspiracy, not the
Algonquin Round Table, sweetie. Your self-centered, politically
motivated attacks on 9/11 allies don’t help a thing.
Doodoo
> "Doodoo" <Doo...@dumshit.com> wrote in message
> news:276db$4855df0b$26...@news.teranews.com...
>> danny burstein wrote:
>>> In <f6j5k.48162$102....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Freedom
>>> Fighter" <lib...@once.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>> Do these people also fail to realize that the weight of the upper
>>>>> portion of the building had a bit to do with the collapse? Let's hit
>>>>> FF in the knee with a baseball bat, and see if he falls down.
>>>> You would never dare try it in person, coward!
>
>> Has anyone ever noticed that Danny Burstein has the same IP address as
>> Al Dykes and posts within a couple of minutes of each other.
>
> No doubt these two government coverup SHILLS work in the same office, even
> sharing the same computer.
> Either that, or we see here one multi-identity shill feebly trying to make
> his mental molehill look like a mountain.
> Pathetic indeed!
Yep ..Just the two of em trying to fill out a football team, Both first
and second string. Sp much for facts and honesty from that pack of 2 rats.
>
>
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
LApert
> In <BJy5k.98011$SV4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> writes:
>
>>> Has anyone ever noticed that Danny Burstein has the same IP address as
>>> Al Dykes and posts within a couple of minutes of each other.
>
>> No doubt these two government coverup SHILLS work in the same office, even
>> sharing the same computer.
>> Either that, or we see here one multi-identity shill feebly trying to make
>> his mental molehill look like a mountain.
>> Pathetic indeed!
>
>
> Tell you what. If Al is game, when you finally
> decide to pick up that MetroCard, I'll ask him if
> he'd like to be at the meeting.
>
> Or are you going to hide behind that yellwo streak again?
Big talk from a scum sucking chickenshit,, if someone knocked at your
door, you would shit your britches and scream for Momma. You need a foot
up your ass to straighten the attitude out. Also DykHead cut the shit
before you get a special Email from you friends.
danny burstein
>> he'd like to be at the meeting.
>>
>> Or are you going to hide behind that yellwo streak again?
>Big talk from a scum sucking chickenshit,, if someone knocked at your
>door, you would shit your britches and scream for Momma. You need a foot
>up your ass to straighten the attitude out. Also DykHead cut the shit
>before you get a special Email from you friends.
Hey, sock puppet. I'll extend that MetroCard
offer to you as well. But in your case
let's meet up in someplace like the UFA
headquarters, and you can tell the firemen
there, with their Halligans, what you
think of their actions.
SHOOTER586
> This "testimony" changed from the first time he (The Amazing
> Rodriguez) stated that he heard the explosion that caused great liquid
> burns to his friend in the elevator, to hearing explosions before the
> impacts (not quite sure how he knew this).
>
> His exploits (including his lies about saving people and being the
> last one out of the towers) are well documented.
Yes, that is why it is so easy to document his lies and how his
stories have changed over the years.
> the original claim stated it was just metal? Are you claiming to know
> more than those creating this talking point?
>
> If not iron, what else could it have been? Iron was the ONLY metal present
> in large quantities - as structural steel. And as the structural steel could
> not have been brought to white heat and melted by the fires, it must have
> come from thermate combustion - the ONLY possible source of such high
> temperatures.
Large quantities, yes, but not what you claimed was coming out of the
window and what was claimed. It seems you have changed the talkiong
point without discussing this with Griffin, Jones, et al.
> cannot be caused by thermate since it doesn't retain heat longer than
> a few minutes.
>
> UNTRUE.
> You really have no knowledge of chemistry or physics, do you?
> The vast amount of heat energy generated by the highly exothermic thermate
> combustion had to go SOMEWHERE. As the molten iron was buried by debris, it
> took WEEKS for a significant amount of cooling to occur.
Based on the heat generated on the supposed reaction would have
dissipated quickly as all exothermic reactions do. Thermate does not
retain heat. Every experment done on it has shown (even to Jones) that
the heat cannot be restained in such a long period. In other words,
since it was claimed to have been used in demolition, the timing of it
would mean that it started well before the collapse initiation. Since
incendiary devices burn much slower than explosives, it could not have
retined the heat past the conclusion of the collapse. I can tell you
have very little experiencd with such since you are parroting websites
and are not using direct experience.
> > So, your claim that "no other possible source" is a lie.
>
> No, YOUR claim that "the 'molten pools' cannot be caused by thermate since
> it doesn't retain heat longer than
> a few minutes" is a lie! If not a lie, it is a revelation of ignorance that
> disqualifies you from being taken seriously on this subject.
How can you claim any "revelation of ignorance" since you have ZERO
training or experience with the use of demoliton devices, explosives,
and/or incendiary devices? If you do have ANY experience, please tell
us in which capacity. I'm sure we would want to use the same
qualifications to allow us to take you seriously.
> > Can you show ANY historical reference to thermate causing pools
>
> of molten iron in controlled demolitions? You would think it existed
> in every one based on your claims.
>
> Obviously you never attended a high school chemistry class and thus never
> saw the classic demonstration of the combustion of thermite, which produces
> a white-hot glob of molten iron. Thermate is thermite with sulfur and other
> ingredients added to lower the ignition temperature and make the substance
> formable.
Actually, I have seen thermate in actuality and not in a "classroom".
I have seen 100s of lbs used in many situations. In your vast
experience with it, how long did the molten iron stay molten? Days?
Weeks? Months? Please tell us that you are not basing your claims
about thermate from a classroom setting.
> > > For that
>
> > matter WHERE have you ever seen or heard of termate being used in
> > controlled demolition jobs?
>
> > Easy to find information, if you bother to look for it
>
> In other words, you couldn't find any?
>
> No, YOU didn't bother to look for any!
> I am not responsible for your education!
You have been trying to "educate" us this whole time and now you cliam
you can't?
It is your claim and you can't back it up? I know for a fact that is
NOT used in demolition since it burns too slowly, cannot be timed
within milliseconds, cannot be stup to burn laterally, and cannot be
trusted to burn completely. Maybe if you can show us an application in
how it can be setup to buirn laterally and be timed within
milliseconds, then I may take your experience in such with a grain of
salt. But since you have told us that you may have a total experience
with demolition, explosives, and incendiary devices in a classroom,
then I can wait to see how you can demonstrate the use of such a
product in a controlled demolition capacity.
> > Remember, if you make a claim,
>
> it is your burdon of proof to support it. Saying it is out there when
> it isn't shows you couldn't find any. I noticed that you never sourced
> any of your information, so it seems you are either plagiarizing it or
> are guessing. Which is it?
>
> I claim that the air is mostly nitrogen, but I cannot prove it - not here at
> least.
> You can however look up that information and see I am right.
> I noticed that you never researched anything about high explosives,
> thermate, demolition, etc.
> I guess you just DON'T WANT to know, just as most of the Sheeple want to
> keep hiding their heads in the sand while the fascist Neo-KKKon$ continue
> destroying America, just as they destroyed almost 3000 American lives on
> 9/11.
Actually, you can show ANY independent website proving that air is
mosty nitrogen. Not hard at all, really. So, show us ANY independent
website showing us the uses of incendiary devices in controlled
demolitions. Since you can look it up, then show us. I have plenty of
experience with high explosives, incendiary devices and can prove that
you are limited to CT websites and maybe a "high school classroom"
experiment.
> FOOLS! Fail to learn the lessons of history, and history surely repeats!
> Ever hear of the Reichstag fire, Sheeple?
Now, what have you said about ad hominem attacks? I figured....
Rocky
"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in message
> BLOWN TO BITS: PROOF of the 9/11 INSIDE JOB
>
> The sudden, complete, straight down at free fall speed collapse of steel
> towers as well, which like the damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building
> would probably have remained standing.
>
> Government-paid propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in
> psychological denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what
> fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to defend
> their indefensible position. The Homeland Terrorists are obviously
> desperate to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the
> foreknowledge if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and
> economic exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster. Could Bin
> Laden have somehow totally incapacitated our NORAD defenses on that
> horrible morning? I don't think so!
>
> But there is evidence of the INSIDE JOB as clear and indisputable as the
> explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing down of
> NORAD. Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on the roofs
> of nearby buildings. These were too far away to be from jumpers from the
> towers. If the towers simply collapsed from damage and fire alone, what
> blew these bodies to smithereens and sent the fragments flying for
> considerable distances? The plane impacts did not have the explosive
> can blow bodies to tiny bits and throw them such distances.
>
> among you can credibly account for these body fragments, other than their
> being the result of high explosives being detonated in the towers?
>
> I await a barrage of infantile name-calling by frustrated adolescent
> fools, media-brainwashed citizens in denial, and shills being paid to
> cover up the CRIME OF THE CENTURY. Rational discussion is welcome; trolls
> and shills will be killfiled and ignored.
>
>
> SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
> GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
> EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
>
> On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
> Center
> (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos
> of
> the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
> the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
> straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
> touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
> minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
> damaged remained standing.
>
> In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
> former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
> "The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September
> 11,
> 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that
> day
> goes beyond the pale."
>
> We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
> that's "beyond the pale"!
>
> Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
> phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and
> the
> emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
> objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
> assertions?
>
> The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
> that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to
> as
> a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane
> crashes
> and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
> heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
> significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
> repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate
> everything
> else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
> According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence
> was
> quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
> tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
> repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
> sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
>
> There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
> facts:
>
> * It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel
> core
> columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
>
> * The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
> gravity
> alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
>
> Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
> check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to
> do,
> even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
> pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a
> simple,
> unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform
> a
> reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
> such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
> American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
>
> How Gravity Acts:
>
> Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
> noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
> observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity
> at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
> magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
> become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
> certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
>
> Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
> ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
> same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
> fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
>
> So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
> anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
> greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
> falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
> accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per
> second
> for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago,
> heavier
> objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
>
> So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
> per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
> falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling
> at
> 64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
> on.
>
> Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is
> falling
> at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
> ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has
> fallen
> 16 feet.
>
> Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
> harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in any
> high-school physics book:
>
> * Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
>
> And
>
> * Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D =
> 1/2
> x G x T x T)
>
> So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:
>
> Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
>
> So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
> and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
>
> Checking Our Work:
>
> We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work,
> using
> conservation of energy.
>
> We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely
> changes
> form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy
> in
> a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
> gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
> heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
> bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is
> converted
> into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
> [molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough
> to
> shatter or even pulverize concrete.
>
> In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
> concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
> potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water
> stored
> up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever is
> holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
> gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
> converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
>
> So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic
> energy.
>
> The equation for potential energy is:
>
> * Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x
> H)
>
> The equation for kinetic energy is:
>
> * Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
>
> So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has
> a
> mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
> momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
>
> The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x
> 144
> = 4608
>
> The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared =
> 1/2
> x 9216 = 4608
>
> So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy.
> Seeing
> that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
> simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an
> independent
> analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of
> energy.
> Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
>
> One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:
>
> The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
> perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
> may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
> of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as
> will
> a solid metal ball.
>
> That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
> gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in
> order
> for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational
> potential
> energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate
> of
> 32 ft/sec/sec.
>
> In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
> falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
> energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
> its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet
> per
> second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
> overcoming frictional resistance.
>
> This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall
> equations
> predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
> limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
> propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall. At
> that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
> increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
> incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the
> air
> creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
> terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration
> upward,
> they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is
> maintained.
> Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the
> person
> attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
>
> A Quick Recap:
>
> Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
> physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
> resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
> without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air resistance
> it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
> fall a given distance.
>
> Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:
>
> The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start
> by
> using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
> free-fall from the towers' height.
>
> Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
>
> With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:
>
> 2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
>
> Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
>
> Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
>
> Time = 9.2
>
> So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
> ground from the height of the WTC towers.
>
> Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
> free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just
> over
> 200 mph.
>
> But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
>
> Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
> imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
> arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
> objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
> example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
> mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
>
> Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
> than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
> ground.
>
> Observations from 9/11:
>
> On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the
> government's
> "complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
> seconds. Here is the exact quote:
>
> "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
> government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
> not lie about this.
>
> But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
> seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the
> air.
>
> This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
> air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
> undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands
> of
> times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
> core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30
> years
> despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
>
> Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way
> of
> the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would?
> Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the
> upper
> floors less than would, say, a parachute?
>
> It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
> you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
> minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more
> than
> 10 seconds!
>
> What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could
> not
> have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
> rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
> physically impossible!
>
>Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
> high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
> glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
> Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
> energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total
> amount
> of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
> sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in
> close
> to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
> expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and
> glass,
> eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
> The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to
> have
> done all these things at once.
>
> Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So
> WHERE
> DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
>
> Conclusions:
>
> In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
> observed
> duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
> following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
>
> * The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
> the collapse.
>
> * The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
> expenditure
> of energy.
>
> * The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.
>
> * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
> gravity.
>
> * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
>
> None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions
> can
> be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
> the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official
> myth
> of 9/11.
>
> The Bottom Line:
>
> The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
> conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
> FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
> collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
> explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
>
> It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
> destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
> free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the WTC
> collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane
> impacts.
> The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
> towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
> came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
>
> So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
> story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
> premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you
> to
> decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
> presumptions, is also flawed.
>
> The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
> also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
> similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
> made no attempt to explain it.
>
> Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
> miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
> basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
>
> ---------------------------------
> FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB:
>
> http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation
Thanks and I just wanted to add a few links to your post.
WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg
Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosives_evidence_timeline.html
Obwon
Good stuff for those who haven't looked much.
Any serious researcher becomes perplexed by the amount
of information, that the gov't should be extremely happy to
release, but continues to either refuse, or releases data
that can't be confirmed to mean what it's supposed to.
P4T -- (911 Pilots For Truth) for example, has data sets,
they've obtained via FOIA request, that are missing the
data needed to identify where it came from (which aircraft).
That same data, in the estimation of pilots who actually
fly these kinds of aircraft, shows the plane doing things
that cannot be done, less, in the hands of a person who
had never flown one before. They declare it impossible for
a first time pilot, to perform the precision turns, diving
turns and precision pull outs required.
This has caused people to wonder if somehow remote or
computer controlled guidance systems were used. But hey, if
you even assume hypothetically that they were, then you
must also assume it's a false flag operation, or show how
OBL managed to obtain and install them, then find the
expert people needed to operate them. All, without ever
being detected by anyone.
To quell such speculation, the gov't should be happily
stepping forward with the verifiable data that's needed to
put this thinking to rest. Instead they either don't
answer, or hand over false data ("in error"?). All of
which has given rise to the NPT (no planes theory), which
says that if the skyjackers could not fly these aircraft,
and no guidance system could have been installed. And the
videos of the crashes are fakes, then there weren't any
planes crashed into the towers or the Pentagon. That leaves
explosives, carefully placed, to create the damage that
was then attributed to skyjacked plane crashes.
Look at it this way, if there were real jets flying, then
wouldn't high quality, professionally operated video
cameras, have caught unquestionable footage of the events?
If so, why can't they be found? The obvious answer is,
they can not be found, because they don't exist. Who in
their right mind, would -- or even could -- create fake
videos of an unexpected event of such serious proportions,
then play same on tv for millions to see? Do so, at the
very time the actual events were supposed to be happening.
Then hide the real videos from all? Makes no sense, unless
fake video is all they have.
Animal 07
And they were wrong on all counts. But that has never stopped troofer
kooks from clinging to the few nuts that exist in every profession
>
> This has caused people to wonder if somehow remote or
> computer controlled guidance systems were used. But hey, if
> you even assume hypothetically that they were, then you
> must also assume it's a false flag operation, or show how
> OBL managed to obtain and install them, then find the
> expert people needed to operate them. All, without ever
> being detected by anyone.
To bad the planes were not fly by wire, your "theory" might have been
possible....but since they were not, your theory is nonsense.
>
> To quell such speculation, the gov't should be happily
> stepping forward with the verifiable data that's needed to
> put this thinking to rest. Instead they either don't
> answer, or hand over false data ("in error"?). All of
> which has given rise to the NPT (no planes theory), which
> says that if the skyjackers could not fly these aircraft,
> and no guidance system could have been installed. And the
> videos of the crashes are fakes, then there weren't any
> planes crashed into the towers or the Pentagon. That leaves
> explosives, carefully placed, to create the damage that
> was then attributed to skyjacked plane crashes.
>
> Look at it this way, if there were real jets flying, then
> wouldn't high quality, professionally operated video
> cameras, have caught unquestionable footage of the events?
No........only troofer kooktards think that "high quality professional
video cameras" would be used for security cameras in parking lots and
gas stations and pointed at the sky
> If so, why can't they be found? The obvious answer is,
> they can not be found, because they don't exist. Who in
> their right mind, would -- or even could -- create fake
> videos of an unexpected event of such serious proportions,
> then play same on tv for millions to see? Do so, at the
> very time the actual events were supposed to be happening.
> Then hide the real videos from all? Makes no sense, unless
> fake video is all they have.
"makes no sense" describes the troofer claims to a tee
Rocky
"Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24391-4D4...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
> Are you that stupid?
If I were you I would not call anybody else stupid because of the following
false remark of yours
PPA's quote: "Since this so-called nanoenergetics probably dosn't exist"
"Nanoenergetic materials can store higher amounts of energy than
conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to
tailor the release of this energy."
The above quote comes from the following URL and that makes it look like
when nano-thermite is setup to explode it can do more damage than RDX.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
If you yourself had taken the time you look up nanoenergetics on the
internet you would not have made such a st00pid remark above. Ha doesn't
exist. <G>
Rocky - Busted PPA again
Obwon
First this is irrelavent.
>>
>> To quell such speculation, the gov't should be happily
>> stepping forward with the verifiable data that's needed to
>> put this thinking to rest. Instead they either don't
>> answer, or hand over false data ("in error"?). All of
>> which has given rise to the NPT (no planes theory), which
>> says that if the skyjackers could not fly these aircraft,
>> and no guidance system could have been installed. And the
>> videos of the crashes are fakes, then there weren't any
>> planes crashed into the towers or the Pentagon. That leaves
>> explosives, carefully placed, to create the damage that
>> was then attributed to skyjacked plane crashes.
>>
>> Look at it this way, if there were real jets flying, then
>> wouldn't high quality, professionally operated video
>> cameras, have caught unquestionable footage of the events?
>No........only troofer kooktards think that "high quality professional
>video cameras" would be used for security cameras in parking lots and
>gas stations and pointed at the sky
Explain why there are two vids of the north tower hit, and
any number of vids of the south tower strike 18 minutes
later? What kind of video cameras do you think caught these
events? Toys?
>> If so, why can't they be found? The obvious answer is,
>> they can not be found, because they don't exist. Who in
>> their right mind, would -- or even could -- create fake
>> videos of an unexpected event of such serious proportions,
>> then play same on tv for millions to see? Do so, at the
>> very time the actual events were supposed to be happening.
>> Then hide the real videos from all? Makes no sense, unless
>> fake video is all they have.
>
>"makes no sense" describes the troofer claims to a tee
>
You're not very good at this, go back and get more
training.
BDK
says...
ROTFL. Are you serious? There are tourists, TV shows being taped, and
people just walking around with cameras in NYC. Then when the first
tower was hit, all the cameras came out. You don't see many, if any,
security cam videos of the tower attacks, if there are any, because
there are so many better quality ones out there.
>
> >> If so, why can't they be found? The obvious answer is,
> >> they can not be found, because they don't exist. Who in
> >> their right mind, would -- or even could -- create fake
> >> videos of an unexpected event of such serious proportions,
> >> then play same on tv for millions to see? Do so, at the
> >> very time the actual events were supposed to be happening.
> >> Then hide the real videos from all? Makes no sense, unless
> >> fake video is all they have.
> >
> >"makes no sense" describes the troofer claims to a tee
> >
> You're not very good at this, go back and get more
> training.
LOL, he's sane, which makes him tower over a kooktard like yourself.
--
BDK- Top of the government shill heap for over 10 years running!
Rocky
"Obwon" <Ob...@real.com> wrote in message
news:tt8ik6trmnkp4vd2j...@4ax.com...
Telling anal 07 he is an idiot is great but whatever you do, do not try to
help him out because I want him to stay an idiot.
Rocky
BDK
woo...@att.net says...
You would be a good example of an idiot, not Animal. He seems to be
infinitely more intelligent than you, Rockhead. But anyone of normal
intelligence is too.
Keep the kooktardery coming.
Animal 07
Hey dumbass.......it was the pentagon being talked about.
>
>>> If so, why can't they be found? The obvious answer is,
>>> they can not be found, because they don't exist. Who in
>>> their right mind, would -- or even could -- create fake
>>> videos of an unexpected event of such serious proportions,
>>> then play same on tv for millions to see? Do so, at the
>>> very time the actual events were supposed to be happening.
>>> Then hide the real videos from all? Makes no sense, unless
>>> fake video is all they have.
>>
>> "makes no sense" describes the troofer claims to a tee
>>
> You're not very good at this, go back and get more
> training.
<snicker> far better than any of you troofer kooktards will ever be.
LMAO
Animal 07
Being called an idiot by someone to stupid to keep the rubber in contact
with the asphalt?
LMAO
BDK
wher...@friday.com says...
Well, that rightside up and upside down thing is confusing to a poor
kooktard.
And even for a kooktard, Rockhead is on the lower rung of intelligence.