100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Air Force pursuing antimatter weapons | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I think a man who worked in building #7 for years and barely got out with his life and was injured and treated is a damn credible witness. I think firemen who heard explosions are damn credible witnesses. I am being more logical than you are. You are ignoring the facts and the evidence. So I can say the same thing you say. Believe what you want. A building falling at free fall speed is not falling on top of the floors below it because the floors below it would slow down the fall. That is common sense and basic physics. Free fall speed means that the floors below it were not putting up any resistance at all. They were also falling at free fall speed. There was no reason for them to be falling at free fall speed before they were hit by the floors above them. Basic Common sense. try basic physics instead... sometimes that overrules common sense... It is basic physics. Free fall in ten seconds. One floor crashing into another floor could not have done that. show me how it could not have happened, i'll listen...  None of you people who claim to know all this physics stuff have shown anyone how it could have happened the way it did. NOT EVEN NIST! When one floor falls and crashes on top of another floor it will naturally meet some resistance. This resistance will slow it down. The building did not slow down. It fell at free fall speed and in ten seconds as if it were falling through thin air. No resistance. Basic physics. why do we need to explain it? it already happened, and they have on about 429 videos.. watch them and every time someone asks you to show why you believe something, you turn it around and try to get them to explain their views. your the one that keeps saying it could not have happened one way or the other, but you NEVER try to help us understand why you think it is so... i'll ask you again, why could the buildings could not have fallen the way they did? if your not going to answer this, tell me and i'll get off this thread and leave you to your fantasies... show me how it is not a fantasy... I already answered your question but I will say it again. Because the floors would have met resistance and would slow down as one floor fell upon the one below it. They did not slow down because there was no resistance at all. There was no resistance because the floor below them exploded and collapsed because of the explosions, not because of the weight of the floor above it. Free fall speed could not have occurred if there was any resistance. The floors below were held up with even larger and stronger steal and concrete than the floors above them. That is a lot of resistance. One million tons of material. And the debris was only 2% of all of that material and the pile was less than a story tall. Impossible unless there was a powerful explosion or bomb at work. Even a controlled demolition with explosives would have more debris to clean up at the bottom. Basic physics and basic common sense. And I feel like I'm talking to a wall because you don't comprehend anything I say apparently. Believe anything you want. Believe your government. They never ever lie. and why do you think it is impossible? the buildings are designed as a whole, they are not designed to hold up if the top 20 - 40 floors come crashing down in a pancake fashion. the weight is 10 -100 times more when it is moving, like when a 150 pound person is running up the stairs, the force being applied to their feet is around 500 Pounds. so if the top 20 floors weighs 500 tons, the pressure being applied is going to be about 5000 tons when it hits the next floor, and gets heavier every floor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My biggest concern with the government/military developing antimatter weapons, would have to be: The most powerful and potentially globally devastating weapon ever known to man, is being built by the lowest bidder!
  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My biggest concern with the government/military developing antimatter weapons, would have to be: The most powerful and potentially globally devastating weapon ever known to man, is being built by the lowest bidder! don't worry to much, they are decades away from any type of meaningful development. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and why do you think it is impossible? The evidence does not support the official story. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (at free fall speed "collapse"). "On September 11, 2001 the World Trade Center Twin Towers disintegrated in a manner that scientists say resembled deliberately calculated implosions." And yet NIST and the official government report still makes the claim that there were no explosions, and "no evidence of explosives found." Our Government has proved time and time again that they LIE. Why should I go against basic common sense, and go against basic physics, and disagree with independent reputable scientists (not paid by government) and chose to believe the NIST and 9-11 commission report? I don't want to "pick and choose" what I will believe. What I want is proof and what I want is the truth. The government have not proven anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My biggest concern with the government/military developing antimatter weapons, would have to be: The most powerful and potentially globally devastating weapon ever known to man, is being built by the lowest bidder! don't worry to much, they are decades away from any type of meaningful development. Guess again. Listen to Douglas Beason DR. J. DOUGLAS BEASON, Col. (USAF, ret.), a key architect and leading expert of directed-energy research for the past twenty-six years, holds a Ph.D. in laser-technology physics. He has served at the White House, working for the President's Science Advisor in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Today he is on the Board of Directors of the Directed Energy Professional Society, and at Los Alamos National Laboratory he is Director of Threat Reduction. Dr. Beason is the author of twelve books, including some popular fiction techno-thrillers, and over one hundred scholarly papers and other works. He is a Fellow of the prestigious American Physical Society. http://drjudywood.com/media/DouglasBeasonLosAlamos.mp3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like some kind of bomb to me. Not some simple pancake collapse due to "structural failure."
Seeing is believing. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and why do you think it is impossible? The evidence does not support the official story. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (at free fall speed "collapse"). "On September 11, 2001 the World Trade Center Twin Towers disintegrated in a manner that scientists say resembled deliberately calculated implosions." And yet NIST and the official government report still makes the claim that there were no explosions, and "no evidence of explosives found." Our Government has proved time and time again that they LIE. Why should I go against basic common sense, and go against basic physics, and disagree with independent reputable scientists (not paid by government) and chose to believe the NIST and 9-11 commission report? I don't want to "pick and choose" what I will believe. What I want is proof and what I want is the truth. The government have not proven anything. we agree the government lies...but for every "scientist" that say says it is impossible, i can find two that will say they are crazy. a vicious circle, huh... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like some kind of bomb to me. Not some simple pancake collapse due to "structural failure." Seeing is believing. whatever, i have already explained what air pressure does...you see things differently than me |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
air pressure.... right.  Okeeee dokeeee. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/24/11 06:08 PM
|
|
and why do you think it is impossible? The evidence does not support the official story. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (at free fall speed "collapse"). "On September 11, 2001 the World Trade Center Twin Towers disintegrated in a manner that scientists say resembled deliberately calculated implosions." And yet NIST and the official government report still makes the claim that there were no explosions, and "no evidence of explosives found." Our Government has proved time and time again that they LIE. Why should I go against basic common sense, and go against basic physics, and disagree with independent reputable scientists (not paid by government) and chose to believe the NIST and 9-11 commission report? I don't want to "pick and choose" what I will believe. What I want is proof and what I want is the truth. The government have not proven anything. we agree the government lies...but for every "scientist" that say says it is impossible, i can find two that will say they are crazy. a vicious circle, huh... I doubt that very seriously. But that's the way science works. They all think they know more than the next guy. And nobody knows everything, and they seldom agree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay so if we can agree that the government lies, they why would you turn your back on evidence that proves their story is a lie?
And why would you believe so called 'experts' who work for a government that lies? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay so if we can agree that the government lies, they why would you turn your back on evidence that proves their story is a lie? And why would you believe so called 'experts' who work for a government that lies? my common sense is different from your common sense...i'm not saying nobody lied, i don't know what was lies and what was truth... but from what i know, and what i've read, and the way the government lies, i do not think it happened the same way you do... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not claiming to know what happened. I only know that we are not being told the truth. That is why I listen to anyone who is working to discover the truth and expose the lies. I support them.
I am against the policy of secrets and classified things that should not be classified. It gives tyranny a free ticket to hide their crimes against humanity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NIST did not even look for evidence of explosives. Other people did and they found some. This remains to me a HUGE smoking gun. How in the world can you definitively say there was no explosives if you NEVER TESTED FOR THEM? They have NO evidence to prove their statement since they didn't look for any of what they claim wasn't there. Anyone with half a brain in their head ought to be able to see that. It's flat common sense, if you don't look for something you CANNOT say it's not there because you have nothing to base it on! For the same reasons I gave you over and over again. There was no thundering sounds of demolition charges going off. How can you claim there were demolition explosives if there were no sounds? There would have been dozens upon dozens of explosions in a chain sequence audible for miles. You always ignore this every time I post it though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think a man who worked in building #7 for years and barely got out with his life and was injured and treated is a damn credible witness. I think firemen who heard explosions are damn credible witnesses. I am being more logical than you are. You are ignoring the facts and the evidence. So I can say the same thing you say. Believe what you want. A building falling at free fall speed is not falling on top of the floors below it because the floors below it would slow down the fall. That is common sense and basic physics. Free fall speed means that the floors below it were not putting up any resistance at all. They were also falling at free fall speed. There was no reason for them to be falling at free fall speed before they were hit by the floors above them. Basic Common sense. Not exactly. The dude who survived building 7 actually changed his original story after the fact. His original story coincided with the official story until he changed it and then tried to sue the government. That isn't credible. Firefirghters hearing explosions is not the same as there being explosives. Floors crushing or a crashing elevator all make explosive sounds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I already answered your question but I will say it again. Because the floors would have met resistance and would slow down as one floor fell upon the one below it. They did not slow down because there was no resistance at all. There was no resistance because the floor below them exploded and collapsed because of the explosions, not because of the weight of the floor above it. Free fall speed could not have occurred if there was any resistance. The floors below were held up with even larger and stronger steal and concrete than the floors above them. That is a lot of resistance. One million tons of material. And the debris was only 2% of all of that material and the pile was less than a story tall. Impossible unless there was a powerful explosion or bomb at work. Even a controlled demolition with explosives would have more debris to clean up at the bottom. Basic physics and basic common sense. And I feel like I'm talking to a wall because you don't comprehend anything I say apparently. Believe anything you want. Believe your government. They never ever lie. Please don't talk about physics when you don't understand it. For one the dust cloud makes an exact measurement of the collapse pretty hard to do and 1-2 seconds is a huge difference. Next resistance only matters if it is significant in relation to the force applied. The buildings structure was not only damages at the point of collapse but many other places along the building. Because as one support failed the load would just start shifting to other supports all through the building and these are all taking damage. There were probably smaller internal collapses inside where floors were already falling into other floors before the main collapse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My biggest concern with the government/military developing antimatter weapons, would have to be: The most powerful and potentially globally devastating weapon ever known to man, is being built by the lowest bidder! don't worry to much, they are decades away from any type of meaningful development. Guess again. Listen to Douglas Beason DR. J. DOUGLAS BEASON, Col. (USAF, ret.), a key architect and leading expert of directed-energy research for the past twenty-six years, holds a Ph.D. in laser-technology physics. He has served at the White House, working for the President's Science Advisor in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Today he is on the Board of Directors of the Directed Energy Professional Society, and at Los Alamos National Laboratory he is Director of Threat Reduction. Dr. Beason is the author of twelve books, including some popular fiction techno-thrillers, and over one hundred scholarly papers and other works. He is a Fellow of the prestigious American Physical Society. http://drjudywood.com/media/DouglasBeasonLosAlamos.mp3 Please learn the difference between direct energy and antimatter. An anti matter weapon would be similar to the atom bomb. And we are nowhere near the technology to create enough antimatter for a weapon. "There is considerable skepticism within the physics community about the viability of antimatter weapons. According to an article on the website of the CERN laboratories, which regularly produces antimatter, "There is no possibility to make antimatter bombs for the same reason you cannot use it to store energy: we can't accumulate enough of it at high enough density. (...) If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weapon |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/24/11 11:42 PM
|
|
Blah blah blah blah blah. Don't tell me what I can talk about. What I do know is how to tell the difference between truth and the B.S of government lies and propaganda and spin.
The dude who survived building 7 actually changed his original story after the fact. His original story coincided with the official story until he changed it and then tried to sue the government. That isn't credible. I think the dude who survived the building 7 that I am talking about was murdered in 2008 under very suspicious circumstances. I don't think I mentioned his name so I don't know who you are talking about or if its the same guy. Please learn the difference between direct energy and antimatter. An anti matter weapon would be similar to the atom bomb. And we are nowhere near the technology to create enough antimatter for a weapon. Please stop telling me what to talk about or what to learn as if you know everything. The videos I have watched over and over of the towers being destroyed (exploding) actually looked more like an atom bomb than a controlled demolition or a building falling because of structural failure. It was a bomb of some kind probably. I don't pretend to know what happened like you do. I just know bull chit when I hear it. Unlike you, I have read the official reports and they don't read true and they don't convince me of anything. They don't offer any evidence or any proof of anything. NIST does not explain how the towers fell like they did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence of an explosive called nano-thermite was found by independant investigators who were there when it happened. Watch the movie "loose change." Wikipedia has some interesting information about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite Potential uses Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.[2] MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[3] 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. Thermobaric weapons are considered to be a promising application of nanoenergetic materials. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[4] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please don't talk about physics when you don't understand it. What? What make you think I don't understand physics? I understand more than you apparently. What makes you think you can tell me what I can talk about anyway? |
|
|
|
|
