9-11 Truth makes HUGE showing at Los Angeles Peace March
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Henry on 30 Mar 2010 15:43 Since the illegal, immoral, and unprovoked wars of terror that are destroying our country were motivated by the government's absurd 9-11 fairy tale conspiracy, the 9-11 Truth movement and the Peace movements should be inseparable. Well done, people.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMiqPQdWvo4 -- "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 30 Mar 2010 16:32 On Mar 30, 1:43 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Since the illegal, immoral, and unprovoked wars of terror that are > destroying our country were motivated by the government's absurd > 9-11 fairy tale conspiracy, the 9-11 Truth movement and the Peace > movements should be inseparable. Well done, people.... > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMiqPQdWvo4 > > -- > > "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- > Albert Einstein. > > http://911research.wtc7.net > http://www.journalof911studies.com/ > http://www.ae911truth.org Replying to your own post with the exact same post? Sure sign a of a fruitcake or a crack pot...judging by how you idiots liger adn stink up the inter net I'll vote for the former. Y'all are a buncha fruitcakes and fools.
From: Tim Crowley on 31 Mar 2010 08:41 On Mar 30, 12:17 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Since the illegal, immoral, and unprovoked wars of terror that are > destroying our country were motivated by the government's absurd > 9-11 fairy tale conspiracy, the 9-11 Truth movement and the Peace > movements should be inseparable. Well done, people. Buahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. thanks for the laugh, k000ker. But yo umissed the memo- all the k00l k000ks have moved on, birthers are in, truthers out.
From: Henry on 31 Mar 2010 09:44 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 and expert research, or defending their impossible fairy tale with anything but childish drivel. Thanks for making my point... <chuckle> 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." "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: Henry on 31 Mar 2010 10:11
S'mee 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. Keith, how many times do I have to tell you that I *do not* believe your insane magic fire/super Arab/cave man cartoon conspiracy theory before it penetrates your thick skull? In spite of the comical denials of you and a few other deluded conspiracy kooks, the fundamental principles of physics still apply on this planet. As always, here's hard proof that your conspiracy theory is physically imposisble. Proof that WTC7 dropped at the rate of free fall. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=206C1F5EDFC83824 This is the point you and other cartoon conspiracy kooks need to read an understand. "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 |