Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

[Say the Truth]

mass wrote:

<quoted text>
yes that does make a difference, and therefore we should have seen a DECELERATION in the collapse sequence as the laws of physics and conservation of momentum would dictate. So how do you account for the fact that the collapse accelerated and at no point did we see any deceleration? And remember, dust blowing in the wind does not increase in mass or momentum and cannot exert a piledriver force and it doesn't matter if your visibility was obscured by the dust.

Why does an avalanche pick up speed? It's just "dust in the wind", RIGHT, you ignor-an-us?

[rider]

Adolf Hitler was a psychopath and a monster but rose to power thanks to big business leaders and other supporters who appreciated his vow to destroy communism and control workers, Hollywood filmmaker Oliver Stone said Monday.

Stone, who is working on a 10-part documentary on the 20th century titled "The Secret History of the United States," said the German dictator was "enabled by Western bankers" and managed to "seduce" Germany's military industrial complex.

"Hitler is a monster. There is no question. I have no empathy for Hitler at all. He was a crazy psychopath," Stone told reporters in the Thai capital. "But like Frankenstein was a monster, there was a Dr. Frankenstein. He is product of his era."

Stone was in Bangkok to give a lecture to high school students on the role of film in peace-building as part of a visit organized by the Vienna-based International Peace Foundation.

He said the aim of his documentary, which two historians are helping him with, was to offer a fuller understanding of the 20th century and how some of those lessons may be relevant to President Barack Obama in 2010.

"What has America become? How can we in America not learn from Germany in the 1930s," the Oscar-winning director asked.

Earlier in the day, Stone told about 300 students that his 1991 movie "JFK," was his most controversial to date and that the United States remains in denial over the possibility that someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald could have assassinated John F. Kennedy.

Stone said exploring alternative theories over the JFK assassination remains too sensitive for those in the media or academia who "would be endangering their careers and their position."

"To this day, many key Americans in power are in total denial about this story," Stone said. "They don't even want to know about the possibility that he was killed by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald. It is a national fairy tale."

"JFK" ridicules the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald acted alone and suggests a massive conspiracy.

Stone's film centered on a theory by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison that a CIA-led mutiny killed the president and the plotters walked away unscathed. Garrison's theories went to court in 1967, but Clay Shaw, the alleged "evil genius" behind the assassination, was acquitted.

Stone said Monday he thought it was "a good thing" to revisit the JFK assassination. But he came under fire from the historians and film reviewers who contended Stone had fudged facts, invented characters and elevated speculation to truth to support his burning belief that the killing was a high-level government conspiracy.

"It's an amazing story and I did it," Stone said. "I thought I would be respected for it, and I was lambasted in the establishment press. I was called a myth-maker, a propagandist. I didn't see it coming. I thought the Kennedy murder was safe."

Stone is famous for several other movies, including the Vietnam War films "Born on the Fourth of July" and "Platoon," which won four Oscars, including best picture and best director.

[Say the Truth]

Insults Are Smith wrote:

No pig, I ignore you because you are a repetitive, insulting, ignorant, dishonest, childish, and classless individual.
Thats why
Insults Are Easier

OH the twoofing IRONY!!!!!!!!!

[Say the Truth]

dust wrote:

<quoted text>
yes and most of it turned to dust and nanoparticles blowing away in the wind and blanketing lower Manhattan

Tell us, Professor, the exact ratio of "nanoparticles" blowing to the non-blowing "nanoparticles".'Mos t' doesn't cut it.

[metal]

RADEKT wrote:

so by just looking at pictures you can determine what the molten material was ...... ahhhh OK !?!?!?!?!?
<quoted text>

whatever metal it was...whether steel, aluminum, titanium, lead, or copper...why did it remain in its molten state for weeks after 9/11?

[Say the Truth]

acceleration wrote:

<quoted text>
We can measure the average speed of the free fall by using the simple equation of velocity which equals distance/time. The towers were roughly 1360 ft, now divde that by roughly 13 seconds and you get 104 ft/sec or about 70 miles/hr. Think about a building collapsing at an average speed of 70 mph! If it started at rest, then it would have had to accelerate to a speed greater than 70 mph at some point as it reached it's terminal velocity. Logic and physics would dictate that after an initial acceleration there should have been a deceleration because of resistance from the lower undamaged floor but instead we had an acceleration at near free fall reaching speeds of greater than 70 mph. In other words, the average speed attained and the time it took for the collapse was approximately equal to dropping a bowling ball from the top of the bowling. You don't need research to figure out that this is impossible in a 'pancake' collapse from jet fuel.

"Average speed" is meaningless.

After 13 seconds of "free fall" - acceleration due to gravity - a body is going 416 ft /sec or 330MPH.

Any "resistance" from the next lower floor is overcome practically instantaneously as the falling upper structure picks up speed and accummulates more mass (therefore F is growing exponentially). Buildings are designed to withstand a mostly static vertical load and reasonable "live" load, not a sledgehammer.

I think you got hit on the head by a falling bowling ball. Go back to smoking pot and reading Chaucer and leave the higher mathematics to your betters.

[Say the Truth]

Insults Are Easier wrote:

<quoted text>
...I do know from experience that flying any plane at top speed, much less 100 mph beyond its operating limits, its highly difficult to hit a target especially at ground level.
Insults Are Easier

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you General Chuck Yeager!

[ratio]

Say the Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell us, Professor, the exact ratio of "nanoparticles" blowing to the non-blowing "nanoparticles".'Mos t' doesn't cut it.

that would be like trying to figure out the ratio between non-firing neurons to firing neurons in your brain, and I would estimate that the ratio would be pretty high but it would be impossible for me to give you an exact ratio...anywhere between a million and billion to 1 if I were to take a conservative guesstimate, though I am not certain you have even that many neurons to begin with.

[Say the Truth]

Dr_Zordipshit wrote:

Evidence of explosions in the WTC towers on 9/11,
brought to you by:
.
"a few kooks on the net"
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha
.
That's A Good One huh eh !

Did you know that we have the number 240 in common? It's your weight and my IQ.

[Say the Truth]

metal mania wrote:

<quoted text>
whatever metal it was...whether steel, aluminum, titanium, lead, or copper...why did it remain in its molten state for weeks after 9/11?

Because it was in a million ton Dutch oven.

[Say the Truth]

ratio wrote:

<quoted text>
that would be like trying to figure out the ratio between non-firing neurons to firing neurons in your brain, and I would estimate that the ratio would be pretty high but it would be impossible for me to give you an exact ratio...anywhere between a million and billion to 1 if I were to take a conservative guesstimate, though I am not certain you have even that many neurons to begin with.

So in shorter words you have no fkcuing idea, and your "most" is a completely meaningless quantity designed to support your position.

Got it.

[rider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[analogy]

Say the Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Why does an avalanche pick up speed? It's just "dust in the wind", RIGHT, you ignor-an-us?

because there is little resistance to a mass of snow falling down a mountainside. But tell me, can the avalanche of snow crush the entire mountain down to a level pile in the same way the dust of the WTC crushed the entire building, that would be the more fitting analogy.
So yes the avalanche is analogous to dust in the wind in that it cannot crush the mountain anymore so than the dust of the WTC on the rest of building but it certainly can spread it itself down the side of the mountain just the same way as dust spread over lower Manhattan.

[stronzo]

Say the Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
So in shorter words you have no fkcuing idea, and your "most" is a completely meaningless quantity designed to support your position.
Got it.

in short, I was just talking about the predominance of non-firing neurons in that lump of stronzo between your ears which is analogous to the amount of nanoparticles and dust spread out over lower Manhattan

[3rd law]

Say the Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
"Average speed" is meaningless.
After 13 seconds of "free fall" - acceleration due to gravity - a body is going 416 ft /sec or 330MPH.
Any "resistance" from the next lower floor is overcome practically instantaneously as the falling upper structure picks up speed and accummulates more mass (therefore F is growing exponentially). Buildings are designed to withstand a mostly static vertical load and reasonable "live" load, not a sledgehammer.
I think you got hit on the head by a falling bowling ball. Go back to smoking pot and reading Chaucer and leave the higher mathematics to your betters.

Mass is constant and cannot increase and in this case it actually decreased as debris was ejected laterally and dust blew away in the wind, therefore both force and acceleration should have also deceased as the kinetic energy was absorbed by the lower floors. While the force increased initially as a result of increase in acceleration, this force was countracted by the equal and opposite force of the lower intact floors according to Newton's basic laws of motion. Newton's 3rd law of motion states:
When a first body exerts a force F1 on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force F2 = &#8722;F1 on the first body. This means that F1 and F2 are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
Which means the equal and opposing force of the intact lower floors should have halted the progressive acceleration of the upper mass of debris and dust falling on it.

[bowling ball]

Say the Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
I think I got hit on the head by a falling bowling ball.

that's a great analogy. So let's say I dropped a bowling ball on your head from about 6 inches above you because that is roughly equivalent in scale to the top portion of the building collapsing on the lower portion, give or take a few inches. Newton's 3rd law states that your skull would exert an equal and opposite force for you to withstand that downward force and you would probably remain standing given the fact that you have a very thick skull and you have a lot more mass than the bowling ball. Now how far would I have to drop the bowling ball before your thick skull would give in and collapse...100 ft maybe?

[Insults Are Easier]

bowling ball wrote:

<quoted text>that's a great analogy. So let's say I dropped a bowling ball on your head from about 6 inches above you because that is roughly equivalent in scale to the top portion of the building collapsing on the lower portion, give or take a few inches. Newton's 3rd law states that your skull would exert an equal and opposite force for you to withstand that downward force and you would probably remain standing given the fact that you have a very thick skull and you have a lot more mass than the bowling ball. Now how far would I have to drop the bowling ball before your thick skull would give in and collapse...100 ft maybe?

Thats just crazy talk. Since his head is all skull, then the ball would just bounce off, completely unlike the symmetrical complete collapse of dust on 9/11.

Insults Are Easier

[AussieBobby]

Dr_Zorderz wrote:

A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb

audio interview? post it

Dr_Zorderz wrote:

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the

Im sure the contractors could tell the difference between one pool of molten(fav buzz word of the twoofer) and another

This pool of "totally molten" here is beams,that pool there is PCs "totally molten",and this one here is soda machines..lol

[Mark]

Where's pool Boy when you need Him?

[RADEKT]

why don't you get a bowling ball and do this experiment using your own head !?!?!?!??!

bowling ball wrote:

<quoted text>
that's a great analogy. So let's say I dropped a bowling ball on your head from about 6 inches above you because that is roughly equivalent in scale to the top portion of the building collapsing on the lower portion, give or take a few inches. Newton's 3rd law states that your skull would exert an equal and opposite force for you to withstand that downward force and you would probably remain standing given the fact that you have a very thick skull and you have a lot more mass than the bowling ball. Now how far would I have to drop the bowling ball before your thick skull would give in and collapse...100 ft maybe?