9-11 Truth makes HUGE showing at Los Angeles Peace March
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Henry on 31 Mar 2010 15:33 Rob Striemer wrote: > Amen but wouldn't it be better to ignore these crack pots? The cost of ignoring their idiocy and lies is too high. U.S. taxpayers and now forced to fund illegal terror campaigns in three countries. The U.S. is going broke and the U.S. economy could collapse. The government's 9-11 lies and the crack pots who mindlessly parrot them can no longer be ignored. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Also worth noting, is that virtually all followers of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory are pitifully and comically incapable of addressing the evidence in a rational, coherent manner. They certainly know how to spew the self deprecating grade school kook drivel, though... <g> As always, here's hard proof to support the claim that WTC7 did, in fact, drop at the rate of free fall. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=206C1F5EDFC83824 The quote below explains why free fall is proof of demolition. This is *very* basic stuff. "Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been converted to motion." Here is Richard Gage's letter to NIST. http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75 TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology Dear Dr. Sunder, We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing ? as we now have over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's? Here are our talking points: 1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many fatal flaws: a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7 for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives. (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been converted to motion.) More proof of demolition: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf Summary "The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the collision with the lower section of the building indicates that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward, the upper block, exerted a force less than its own static weight on the lower section of the building. Any accretion of material into the upper block would have acted as an inertial brake, reducing the force of interaction even further. The undamaged lower section of the building was built to support several times the weight of the material above it, but whether or not we take the safety factor into account, the reduced force exerted by the falling mass could not have been what caused the violent destruction of the building seen in numerous videos. The persistent acceleration of the top section of the building is strong confirmation that some other source of energy was used to remove the structure below it, allowing the upper block to fall with little resistance. Having assumed the existence of an indestructible falling block, with or without accretion, we have demonstrated that, given the observed acceleration, such a block could not possibly have destroyed the lower section of the building. When we turn to the video evidence we see that even the hypothesized existence of a persistent upper block is a fiction. Videos show that the section of the building above the plane impact point was the first section to disintegrate. It was significantly reduced in size prior to the onset of destruction of the lower section of the building. Once the roof line descends into the debris cloud there is no further evidence even of its continued existence. Whether or not it was completely destroyed early in the collapse is a moot point. We have shown that even if it continued to exist intact, it could not have played a significant role in the destruction of the building. A small section of a structure, consisting of a few floors, cannot one-way crush-down a significantly larger lower section of same structure by gravity alone." "Explicitly invoking Newton's Third Law puts this result in another light. Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite, the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is significantly less than its static weight." -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Twibil on 1 Apr 2010 22:20 On Mar 31, 6:59 am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > True, true...BUT inspite of being a commie he isn't a bad buy, well no > worse than the rest of reeky. <shrug> I care that the poor guy has > bought into the bullshit that the kookers espouse. I just found exactly what Hen3ry needs! http://www.mybluebonnets.com/catalog/bullshit_final.jpg Now: is there a way we can make it work retroactively?
From: Tim Crowley on 2 Apr 2010 00:13 On Mar 31, 6:44 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Tim Crowley wrote: > > Actually, it's best to point and laugh. > > It is indeed, because that shows everyone (but other deluded nut > jobs)that mindless followers of the "official" cartoon conspiracy > theory are incapable of reading, thinking, addressing the hard evidence hint: you have no evidence. ever piece of your insane fantasy has been debunked, none of it is possible. fact are facts and you're a nut.
From: Henry on 8 Apr 2010 13:51 Tim Crowley wrote: > On Mar 31, 6:44 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Tim Crowley wrote: >>> Actually, it's best to point and laugh. >> It is indeed, because that shows everyone (but other deluded nut >> jobs)that mindless followers of the "official" cartoon conspiracy >> theory are incapable of reading, thinking, addressing the hard evidence > hint: you have no evidence. Your inability to comprehend basic physics and logic does not mean that they don't exist, ya pitiful, helpless, silly, deluded fool. Here are two very clear and fundamental examples proving that the government's 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory is physically impossible. Also worth noting, is that virtually all followers of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory are pitifully and comically incapable of addressing these facts in a rational, coherent manner. They certainly know how to spew the self deprecating grade school kook drivel, though... <g> Example #1: http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75 TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology Dear Dr. Sunder, We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing ? as we now have over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's? Here are our talking points: 1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many fatal flaws: a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7 for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse - that the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives. (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been converted to motion.) Example #2. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf Summary "The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the collision with the lower section of the building indicates that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward, the upper block, exerted a force less than its own static weight on the lower section of the building. Any accretion of material into the upper block would have acted as an inertial brake, reducing the force of interaction even further. The undamaged lower section of the building was built to support several times the weight of the material above it, but whether or not we take the safety factor into account, the reduced force exerted by the falling mass could not have been what caused the violent destruction of the building seen in numerous videos. The persistent acceleration of the top section of the building is strong confirmation that some other source of energy was used to remove the structure below it, allowing the upper block to fall with little resistance. Having assumed the existence of an indestructible falling block, with or without accretion, we have demonstrated that, given the observed acceleration, such a block could not possibly have destroyed the lower section of the building. When we turn to the video evidence we see that even the hypothesized existence of a persistent upper block is a fiction. Videos show that the section of the building above the plane impact point was the first section to disintegrate. It was significantly reduced in size prior to the onset of destruction of the lower section of the building. Once the roof line descends into the debris cloud there is no further evidence even of its continued existence. Whether or not it was completely destroyed early in the collapse is a moot point. We have shown that even if it continued to exist intact, it could not have played a significant role in the destruction of the building. A small section of a structure, consisting of a few floors, cannot one-way crush-down a significantly larger lower section of same structure by gravity alone." -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: S'mee on 9 Apr 2010 00:54
WHEN some fruitcake keeps using that exact same post OVER and OVER again to hammer a point they lost 9 years ago...then it's safe to say they are not only an IDIOT but a fruitcake as well. Brilliant minds and yet every single one of them comes to EXACTLY the wrong answer and an insane one at that. YOU sir are an IDIOT just like them...but at least they are idiots witha sheepskin all you got is to be a slum lord. |