100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Who believes a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
ummm...the evidence has been melted and turned into a new destroyer for the Navy!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bestinshow
on
Fri 06/12/09 10:46 AM
|
|
The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down. http://digg.com/world_news/NIST_Admits_Total_Collapse_Of_Twin_Towers_Unexplainable You obviously NEVER read the actual letter NIST wrote. The whole is letter is about how it wasn't a controlled explosion. READ the letter. You can actual click on the pdf link from that site and it leads you to the letter.http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself. "NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/161007_nist_admits.htm Idid read it and found that they take alot of liberties and of course the ignored what ever did not fit the story. tell me how these buildings fell at nearly free fall speed? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."
"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/161007_nist_admits.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 06/12/09 11:31 AM
|
|
NIST was paid $20M for their report on the events surrounding the 9/11 collapse for the "official" report.
Only $3M (later raised to $9M but only after repeated requests from the commission for at least $11M) was allowed the 9/11 commission which was a decision "forced" on the government (after 18 months of denial and no attempt to investigate) by the infamous "Jersey Girls". NIST gets $20M, the commission gets $9M..... hmmmmmmmmm I would tell a lot of lies for $20M and probably prove them all. They are also a government agency (an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce)..... Phillip Zelikow (part of W's transition team to the WH and a close friend and co-author of a book with Condi Rice) is chosen (after "Mr Secrecy", Henry Kissinger refused to divulge his client list and resigned) to head a commission to cover up.... er uh... get to the truth, and only given $3M for that task. It was the commissioners, not Zelikow, who asked for the additional funds. It was also Zelikow who decided who would be questioned, what questions would be asked, what findings were relevent and the WH reserved the right for final say on what was published to the report (didn't they do the same with the EPA report saying the air was fit to breathe?). With such well funded and capable people "in charge" how could you not believe the official omission...er uh...commission report?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down. http://digg.com/world_news/NIST_Admits_Total_Collapse_Of_Twin_Towers_Unexplainable You obviously NEVER read the actual letter NIST wrote. The whole is letter is about how it wasn't a controlled explosion. READ the letter. You can actual click on the pdf link from that site and it leads you to the letter.http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself. "NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/161007_nist_admits.htm Idid read it and found that they take alot of liberties and of course the ignored what ever did not fit the story. tell me how these buildings fell at nearly free fall speed? Kevin Barrett has a PHD in African studies how does that make him an expert on building design????? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dan99
on
Fri 06/12/09 12:23 PM
|
|
I would tell a lot of lies for $20M and probably prove them all. So you admit then that it is easy to manipulate facts to suit a given theory? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bestinshow
on
Fri 06/12/09 12:28 PM
|
|
The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down. http://digg.com/world_news/NIST_Admits_Total_Collapse_Of_Twin_Towers_Unexplainable You obviously NEVER read the actual letter NIST wrote. The whole is letter is about how it wasn't a controlled explosion. READ the letter. You can actual click on the pdf link from that site and it leads you to the letter.http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself. "NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/161007_nist_admits.htm Idid read it and found that they take alot of liberties and of course the ignored what ever did not fit the story. tell me how these buildings fell at nearly free fall speed? Kevin Barrett has a PHD in African studies how does that make him an expert on building design????? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down. http://digg.com/world_news/NIST_Admits_Total_Collapse_Of_Twin_Towers_Unexplainable You obviously NEVER read the actual letter NIST wrote. The whole is letter is about how it wasn't a controlled explosion. READ the letter. You can actual click on the pdf link from that site and it leads you to the letter.http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself. "NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/161007_nist_admits.htm Idid read it and found that they take alot of liberties and of course the ignored what ever did not fit the story. tell me how these buildings fell at nearly free fall speed? Kevin Barrett has a PHD in African studies how does that make him an expert on building design????? WTH is 'free fall speed'? There isn't such a thing unless you're speaking of terminal velocity. And the building didn't fall at terminal velocity. At the initial failure of whatever floor failed, the building above began to accelerate down. The mass of all the floors above fell into the ones below, which, weakened as well, collapsed. Once it starts there's no stopping it. I don't have a PHD either. But I certainly understand the basic concepts, as explained by someone who does, on how the building came straight down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
glad to know I am not alone, here is my view:
even if floor #100 fell on top of floor#99 - the weight doubles fls 100 & 99 fall on floor # 98 - weight continues to increase etc etc etc all the way to floor #1 hmmm just guessing wouldnt the amt of weight sustained by each floor which has collapsed on top of each other also play a part in this? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High School Physics Prooves
Towers were Demolished with Explosives. When I talk to people about the building collapses on 9/11/2001, most people have never even heard about the destruction of World Trade Center Building No. 7, the 47 story steel office tower that fell into its own footprint at 5:20 on the evening of 9/11. But even people who know about building 7 will indicate that they don't feel competent to have an opinion about the plausibility of the official explanation for the twin towers collapse. They will say things like "I'm not a structural engineer." or "I'm no architect." I contend that you don't have to be a structural engineer or architect to see that the official story, to the extent that there is one, is strictly impossible. Even knowledge of basic High School physics is enough to prove that the official explanation can not be squared with the rapidity of collapse or the plumes of concrete dust observed on 9/11. 9/11 Commission Report Fails High School Physics Test Newton's law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling bodies. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds without accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the approximately 10 seconds it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 13 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at essentially free fall speed. Another fundamental law of physics is the conservation of energy and it applies to falling bodies as well. An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take a bit longer to reach the ground. As we've seen in the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds. In the "official" explanation of the collapse, the so-called "pancake theory", the floor above gives way and crashes into the floor below it, which gives way and together they fall on the next floor below, and so on. The falling floor must use a considerable amount of its energy to break loose the floor below. In addition, to account for the observed dust plumes, the crashing together of the floors has to crush the concrete floor slabs into a fine powder and that takes a very substantial amount of energy as well. Additional energy is then required to eject those tons of crushed concrete at high speed in all directions because that's what was observed on 9/11. All of this energy must be subtracted from the original potential energy of the falling floor, which means there is much less energy available as kinetic energy(speed) so the floors must be falling much slower than they would otherwise. How much slower? You don't have to be an engineer to realize that the energy required to crush the concrete into fine powder and blow it out of the buildings at high speed is many times more energy than what is required just to move air out of the way. If the energy required to move air out of the way of a falling brick could increase the fall time from 9.2 sec. to 12 sec, the requirement to not only move air, but also crush concrete, and eject tons of crushed concrete dust laterally at high speed, should have increased the fall time considerably. The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall. The Conservation of Energy Law forces us to conclude that there had to be some additional source of energy. Some source of energy to pulverize the concrete and send it in all directions at high speed as a fine powder. Some additional energy to knock out the heavy steel beams that had supported the building for 40 years so that the top of the building could free fall unimpeded to the ground in just over 10 seconds. What was the source of the additional energy? Since the 9/11 commission neglected to investigate the mater, that has been left to your imagination, but large quantities of high grade explosives fit the bill. http://9eleven.info/HSPhysics.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 06/12/09 02:01 PM
|
|
glad to know I am not alone, here is my view: even if floor #100 fell on top of floor#99 - the weight doubles fls 100 & 99 fall on floor # 98 - weight continues to increase etc etc etc all the way to floor #1 hmmm just guessing wouldnt the amt of weight sustained by each floor which has collapsed on top of each other also play a part in this? Freefall.... the time it takes an object to reach the ground without resistence. I challenge anyone to drop 2 bowling balls from the top of a building. Under 1 put 100 square tiles of wood securely attached to something solid (the side of the building maybe?). I'll even allow you set the wood tiles on fire. Now, at the same time release (not drop) both balls, one thru the path of the wood tiles the other without anything obstructing its path. I guarantee you the ball going thru the wood tiles will do a number of possible things. 1. It may reach the bottom, but long after the other ball has settled from its fall. 2. It at some point will veer off the path and fall leaving many of the tiles below uneffected from the fall. 3. It may lose its momentum caused by the resistence each tile above offers, more and more, as the tile above weakens its descent. It will not gain momentum, it will lose it! The bowling ball weighs much more than the wood tiles, and we are using wood not cement and steel, as I said, you can even set fire to the tiles even tho the floors below the impact on the tower were in "normal" condition (if not, why were people told it was safe to return to their offices?). There is no way the ball falling thru the tiles, even with the weight of the combined tiles above, will reach the ground anywhere close to the ball falling with no resistence. The laws of gravity (the equation is posted to many sites) state that an object falling from the heigth of the towers, WITHOUT RESISTENCE, would be less than 10 seconds..... the towers fell in to dust in less time than that.... do we rethink the laws of gravity? Somebody did, and sold it to a public in shock within minutes, for hours, days, weeks on end via the media. The results are evident (so some believe), the science/laws of gravity must be wrong. Then of course there is inertia,.... "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".... each floor would slow the descent of collapse, not make it increase momentum! That is science! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bombs and thermite are pretty cool huh!
They're not fooling me! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High School Physics Prooves Towers were Demolished with Explosives. When I talk to people about the building collapses on 9/11/2001, most people have never even heard about the destruction of World Trade Center Building No. 7, the 47 story steel office tower that fell into its own footprint at 5:20 on the evening of 9/11. But even people who know about building 7 will indicate that they don't feel competent to have an opinion about the plausibility of the official explanation for the twin towers collapse. They will say things like "I'm not a structural engineer." or "I'm no architect." I contend that you don't have to be a structural engineer or architect to see that the official story, to the extent that there is one, is strictly impossible. Even knowledge of basic High School physics is enough to prove that the official explanation can not be squared with the rapidity of collapse or the plumes of concrete dust observed on 9/11. 9/11 Commission Report Fails High School Physics Test Newton's law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling bodies. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds without accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the approximately 10 seconds it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 13 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at essentially free fall speed. Another fundamental law of physics is the conservation of energy and it applies to falling bodies as well. An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take a bit longer to reach the ground. As we've seen in the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds. In the "official" explanation of the collapse, the so-called "pancake theory", the floor above gives way and crashes into the floor below it, which gives way and together they fall on the next floor below, and so on. The falling floor must use a considerable amount of its energy to break loose the floor below. In addition, to account for the observed dust plumes, the crashing together of the floors has to crush the concrete floor slabs into a fine powder and that takes a very substantial amount of energy as well. Additional energy is then required to eject those tons of crushed concrete at high speed in all directions because that's what was observed on 9/11. All of this energy must be subtracted from the original potential energy of the falling floor, which means there is much less energy available as kinetic energy(speed) so the floors must be falling much slower than they would otherwise. How much slower? You don't have to be an engineer to realize that the energy required to crush the concrete into fine powder and blow it out of the buildings at high speed is many times more energy than what is required just to move air out of the way. If the energy required to move air out of the way of a falling brick could increase the fall time from 9.2 sec. to 12 sec, the requirement to not only move air, but also crush concrete, and eject tons of crushed concrete dust laterally at high speed, should have increased the fall time considerably. The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall. The Conservation of Energy Law forces us to conclude that there had to be some additional source of energy. Some source of energy to pulverize the concrete and send it in all directions at high speed as a fine powder. Some additional energy to knock out the heavy steel beams that had supported the building for 40 years so that the top of the building could free fall unimpeded to the ground in just over 10 seconds. What was the source of the additional energy? Since the 9/11 commission neglected to investigate the mater, that has been left to your imagination, but large quantities of high grade explosives fit the bill. http://9eleven.info/HSPhysics.html Except for the fact that there was NO visual evidence of a controlled explosion at site. NO windows blown out or anything at time of collapse. The ENGINEER who DESIGNED the building independently came up with the SAME conclusion as the 9/11 commission. Lets see-PHD in engineering and built the building or a guy with a PHD in African studies. I go with choice A. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High School Physics Prooves Towers were Demolished with Explosives. When I talk to people about the building collapses on 9/11/2001, most people have never even heard about the destruction of World Trade Center Building No. 7, the 47 story steel office tower that fell into its own footprint at 5:20 on the evening of 9/11. But even people who know about building 7 will indicate that they don't feel competent to have an opinion about the plausibility of the official explanation for the twin towers collapse. They will say things like "I'm not a structural engineer." or "I'm no architect." I contend that you don't have to be a structural engineer or architect to see that the official story, to the extent that there is one, is strictly impossible. Even knowledge of basic High School physics is enough to prove that the official explanation can not be squared with the rapidity of collapse or the plumes of concrete dust observed on 9/11. 9/11 Commission Report Fails High School Physics Test Newton's law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling bodies. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds without accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the approximately 10 seconds it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 13 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at essentially free fall speed. Another fundamental law of physics is the conservation of energy and it applies to falling bodies as well. An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take a bit longer to reach the ground. As we've seen in the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds. In the "official" explanation of the collapse, the so-called "pancake theory", the floor above gives way and crashes into the floor below it, which gives way and together they fall on the next floor below, and so on. The falling floor must use a considerable amount of its energy to break loose the floor below. In addition, to account for the observed dust plumes, the crashing together of the floors has to crush the concrete floor slabs into a fine powder and that takes a very substantial amount of energy as well. Additional energy is then required to eject those tons of crushed concrete at high speed in all directions because that's what was observed on 9/11. All of this energy must be subtracted from the original potential energy of the falling floor, which means there is much less energy available as kinetic energy(speed) so the floors must be falling much slower than they would otherwise. How much slower? You don't have to be an engineer to realize that the energy required to crush the concrete into fine powder and blow it out of the buildings at high speed is many times more energy than what is required just to move air out of the way. If the energy required to move air out of the way of a falling brick could increase the fall time from 9.2 sec. to 12 sec, the requirement to not only move air, but also crush concrete, and eject tons of crushed concrete dust laterally at high speed, should have increased the fall time considerably. The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall. The Conservation of Energy Law forces us to conclude that there had to be some additional source of energy. Some source of energy to pulverize the concrete and send it in all directions at high speed as a fine powder. Some additional energy to knock out the heavy steel beams that had supported the building for 40 years so that the top of the building could free fall unimpeded to the ground in just over 10 seconds. What was the source of the additional energy? Since the 9/11 commission neglected to investigate the mater, that has been left to your imagination, but large quantities of high grade explosives fit the bill. http://9eleven.info/HSPhysics.html Except for the fact that there was NO visual evidence of a controlled explosion at site. NO windows blown out or anything at time of collapse. The ENGINEER who DESIGNED the building independently came up with the SAME conclusion as the 9/11 commission. Lets see-PHD in engineering and built the building or a guy with a PHD in African studies. I go with choice A. Yep, I bet he can walk on water too if he has the power to defy the laws of proven science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 1908 Tunguska event in Russia defies all laws of physics but nobody believes it didn't happen. Modern science can't explain everything: Pyramids,evolution,platypus,why Dr Pepper isn't widely available in the New England.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 1908 Tunguska event in Russia defies all laws of physics but nobody believes it didn't happen. Modern science can't explain everything: Pyramids,evolution,platypus,why Dr Pepper isn't widely available in the New England. Once I might believe a law of science could be questioned, but 3 times on the same day? Get real! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tngxl65
on
Fri 06/12/09 02:29 PM
|
|
Here is a page to numerous links addressing the collapse of the towers, the physics behind it, and the claims of conspiracy theorists.
http://www.debunking911.com/ An analysis of the 'free fall' argument http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm An article on Molten Metal http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm There are many links on this site and links on the linked sites that have very good information on the collapse of the towers. I'll give you that there are more sites on the intenet supporting a conspiracy than there is against. That's because conspiracies are interesting. But I can almost always see a more reasonable explanation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a page to numerous links addressing the collapse of the towers, the physics behind it, and the claims of conspiracy theorists. http://www.debunking911.com/ An analysis of the 'free fall' argument http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm An article on Molten Metal http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm There are many links on this site and links on the linked sites that have very good information on the collapse of the towers. I'll give you that there are more sites on the intenet supporting a conspiracy than there is against. That's because conspiracies are interesting. But I can almost always see a more reasonable explanation. The author of the Debunking 9/11 website refuses to reveal his or her identity but does admit to being part of the left gatekeeper crowd, confessing on the front page, "I am a flaming liberal and proud of it." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a page to numerous links addressing the collapse of the towers, the physics behind it, and the claims of conspiracy theorists. http://www.debunking911.com/ An analysis of the 'free fall' argument http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm An article on Molten Metal http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm There are many links on this site and links on the linked sites that have very good information on the collapse of the towers. I'll give you that there are more sites on the intenet supporting a conspiracy than there is against. That's because conspiracies are interesting. But I can almost always see a more reasonable explanation. The author of the Debunking 9/11 website refuses to reveal his or her identity but does admit to being part of the left gatekeeper crowd, confessing on the front page, "I am a flaming liberal and proud of it." And what does that have to do with the information and the links? Because he's a liberal he must be lying? And the links to experts and physicists must be lies too? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is something interesting.
This remote controlled Boeing is testing some interesting things (back in 1984) Not trying to talk about connection to the topic, just show you the availability of a remote controlled Boeing back in 1984.     |
|
|
|
|
