The End of the 9/11 CT Movement

[n0spam4me]

Satanic! Whoa! Paranoia @ the next level. Somebody get me a foil helmet ... quick.

one of Satan's greatest achievements
was to convince most people that he doesn't exist.

and really, Prince of Darkness, or simply the Dark Side of the Force, whatever label gets applied, its still real most certainly something to be reckoned with.

 

[Gamolon]

Do you understand that something "collapsing" at 64% of the acceleration of gravity is only expressing 36% of its weight against whatever is under it? Just FYI ......

Please provide the link to the information you are using to come up with the above numbers. Where are you getting this from?

Also, how would I test your numbers above to see if you're are correct? Example, if I wanted to see if an object weighing 100lbs, traveling at 6.3 m/s2 will express 36lbs upon an object below it, how would I set up an experiment?

 

[daws101]

Mark my words
If the real perpetrators manage to effectively marginalize the TRUTH MOVEMENT, Your children and their children after, will experience a dark age that will make the previous "dark ages" pale by comparison.
You may not get what is at stake here, it is nothing less than the very nature of COMMON SENSE, and humanities connection to physical phenomenon with insight into what is happening and why.
The plot is nothing short of satanic, in that the perpetrators seek to strip the rank&file citizens of any vestige of autonomy by destroying COMMON SENSE.

It is NOT an "argument from incredulity" to question the events of 9/11/2001 ( that is the official explanation for said events ) it is truly ... COMMON SENSE.

the classic getting your ass handed mia culpa..

 

[daws101]

Satanic! Whoa! Paranoia @ the next level. Somebody get me a foil helmet ... quick.

one of Satan's greatest achievements
was to convince most people that he doesn't exist.

and really, Prince of Darkness, or simply the Dark Side of the Force, whatever label gets applied, its still real most certainly something to be reckoned with.

 

[SAYIT]

Do you understand that something "collapsing" at 64% of the acceleration of gravity is only expressing 36% of its weight against whatever is under it? Just FYI ......

Please provide the link to the information you are using to come up with the above numbers. Where are you getting this from?

Also, how would I test your numbers above to see if you're are correct? Example, if I wanted to see if an object weighing 100lbs, traveling at 6.3 m/s2 will express 36lbs upon an object below it, how would I set up an experiment?

Spammy is going to jump from a 5th floor window and land on a scale.

 

[n0spam4me]

Spammy is going to jump from a 5th floor window and land on a scale.

Funny(!) ..... its not the fall, its the sudden stop, and there in defines the issue. To define what is going on, the mass that is observed falling at 64% of g, doesn't slow down, or jolt, or anything of the sort it simply keeps accelerating.

Now picture this, if you had a precision manufactured part, that was shelf that would support say 35 lbs as a static load, but would break at 36 lbs, and arrange a number of these shelves in a vertical array such as the floors of the WTC tower had been and then drop a 100 lb weight on the topmost shelf, the result would be that the weight would descend at aprox 64% of g.

Now may I also point out that in an ideal model sort of "simulation" of the "collapse" event one could envision a tower with the damaged upper section behaving as if it were a load of gravel, and the dumping of said gravel was uniform in nature so as to guarantee the breakage of all of the connections on a given floor, however this is NOT the case, the broken upper section of the tower would drop rubble composed of random size & composition bits that may have been anything from sand sized to multi-ton chunks of steel from the structure, how then can anyone account for the fact that what is observed is the total destruction of each and every level all the way down the tower ( that is including the outer wall columns & core )?

 

[n0spam4me]

the classic getting your ass handed mia culpa..

and YOU have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that 19 fanatics hijacked 4 airliners and scored hits on 3 buildings?
..... or?

 

[daws101]

the classic getting your ass handed mia culpa..

and YOU have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that 19 fanatics hijacked 4 airliners and scored hits on 3 buildings?
..... or?

yes ....

 

[n0spam4me]

the classic getting your ass handed mia culpa..

and YOU have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that 19 fanatics hijacked 4 airliners and scored hits on 3 buildings?
..... or?

yes ....

wow, a one word answer, care to share with this forum what your evidence is?

 

[SAYIT]

the classic getting your ass handed mia culpa..

and YOU have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that 19 fanatics hijacked 4 airliners and scored hits on 3 buildings?
..... or?

yes ....

wow, a one word answer, care to share with this forum what your evidence is?

If he doesn't I will ... just as soon as you provide your evidence of your oft repeated claims that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and that "the fires were staged and controlled."

 

[ChrisL]

the classic getting your ass handed mia culpa..

and YOU have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that 19 fanatics hijacked 4 airliners and scored hits on 3 buildings?
..... or?

yes ....

wow, a one word answer, care to share with this forum what your evidence is?

If he doesn't I will ... just as soon as you provide your evidence of your oft repeated claims that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and that "the fires were staged and controlled."

They will never stop because they are

 

[SAYIT]

the classic getting your ass handed mia culpa..

and YOU have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that 19 fanatics hijacked 4 airliners and scored hits on 3 buildings?
..... or?

yes ....

wow, a one word answer, care to share with this forum what your evidence is?

If he doesn't I will ... just as soon as you provide your evidence of your oft repeated claims that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and that "the fires were staged and controlled."

They will never stop because they are

Some exhibit a reality disconnect but many are just so heavily invested in terms of time and effort that they just can't let it go. It can't be easy admitting one has spent years barking up the wrong tree but ... well ... there it is.

 

[n0spam4me]

They will never stop because they are

What? Not in my right mind? can any of the supporters of the official story point to absolute proof that there ever was any of the 4 alleged airliners flown in to the target locations alleged to have been hit by airliners? How many kilos ( or? ) of actual aircraft bits were recovered and by what means were they certified & documented to have been from the aircraft in question?

 

[ChrisL]

They will never stop because they are

What? Not in my right mind? can any of the supporters of the official story point to absolute proof that there ever was any of the 4 alleged airliners flown in to the target locations alleged to have been hit by airliners? How many kilos ( or? ) of actual aircraft bits were recovered and by what means were they certified & documented to have been from the aircraft in question?

Sorry. I avoid the insane because it's like arguing with a drunk.

 

[n0spam4me]

They will never stop because they are

What? Not in my right mind? can any of the supporters of the official story point to absolute proof that there ever was any of the 4 alleged airliners flown in to the target locations alleged to have been hit by airliners? How many kilos ( or? ) of actual aircraft bits were recovered and by what means were they certified & documented to have been from the aircraft in question?

Sorry. I avoid the insane because it's like arguing with a drunk.

Bottom line here, you have a belief that 19 fanatics hijacked airliners and crashed said airliners however when pressed for the actual reasons for your belief, you opt out of the discussion.

Have a nice day

: )

 

[Gamolon]

Now picture this, if you had a precision manufactured part, that was shelf that would support say 35 lbs as a static load, but would break at 36 lbs, and arrange a number of these shelves in a vertical array such as the floors of the WTC tower had been and then drop a 100 lb weight on the topmost shelf, the result would be that the weight would descend at aprox 64% of g.

n0spam.

What are you using to define that a percentage of g results in the inverse percentage of weight of an object to be applied to an object beneath? Is it a formula? Where is this information?

Does your "formula" or "information" work as follows?
An object falling at 70% of g will apply 30% of its weight to an object below
An object falling at 30% of g will apply 70% of its weight to an object below
An object falling at 53% of g will apply 47% of its weight to an object below

Using your example above, explain to me the following.
1. When the 100lb weight is dropped, what rate of descent is it falling at?
2. When the 100lb weight impacts the shelf, what is the amount of force exerted? Show me the formula you used so we can see if you are understanding this process correctly
3. If I dropped a 100,000lb weight on the same shelf, what would the rate of descent be and would you visibly see a jolt the moment said weight impacted the shelf?

Here's another question. If your shelf in the above example was designed to support a STATIC load of 35lbs and I dropped a 35lb weight from 50 feet above said shelf, would it resist or would the weight break it? What is the impact force generated? How does this fit into your percentage of g = the inverse percentage of weight applied to an object below?

Let's see if you REALLY understand physics and if you can site your sources for your information.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

How did the engine, landing gear and fuselage "supposedly" from UA175 exit the north face of WTC2??

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Of course there were no planes.

Dr. Tracy Blevins explained it years ago. She proved the buildings were shot with dustification beams.

 

[chikenwing]

I don't know who was behind 911 but it's obvious it wasn't 19 hijackers.
Richard Gage now has 2200 architects and engineers who have put there careers and their good names on the line by signing the petition at AE911 Truth. The 911 Truth Movement only gets stronger. Many people still haven't heard about Building Seven. When I show people they often say "why didn't I ever hear about this?!?!"

Good question!

Not one of the believers of the Official Conspiracy Theory can explain why on 911 two planes knocked down three skyscrapers. That the official reason was fire when no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire even though there have been thousands of high rise fires, many which burned hotter and longer.
In fact the only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to collapse like the WTC 1,2 & 7 is controlled demolition.

Your final claim is patently false (they fell on 9/11) as there is - 13 years after the attack - still no evidence of a CD. In fact, NoSpammy's scenario is that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and the "fires were staged and controlled" (foil helmets required). So what is yours?

Do you understand that something "collapsing" at 64% of the acceleration of gravity is only expressing 36% of its weight against whatever is under it? Just FYI ......

Ahh NO!! LOL

 

[SAYIT]

Of course there were no planes.

Dr. Tracy Blevins explained it years ago. She proved the buildings were shot with dustification beams.

With large ta-tas.