Logon or register to see this image
- Status
You're absolutely wasting your breath with this fella.
Apply facts, a little logic even or debunk his laughably bad science and he will simply ignore it and blithely move on to his next crackpot theory.
Your only hope is to resort to PM's kryptonite and ask him about Special Moon Water.
IknowWhatILike
Winger
That starts with maths, which is correct. Then the guy doesn't know how to work out the next part, and just insists 'its impossible to imagine' that the laws of science were being followed. At least offer proof instead of conjecture - especially when you could actually prove it using (fairly) basic maths
SYB_DC
Winger
Your inability to use the quote feature aside:
That's rather impressive considering that there is no video anywhere that clearly shows the second half or so of the collapse clearly. It's just a big cloud. Any if it's more than 10.0 seconds (as you seem to be relying on), it makes a large difference at in terms of the assertion you're making. By the time 10 seconds have elapsed, an object in free fall will long since have reached terminal velocity. In other words, if you're off by even one-tenth of a second, that's an additional 17.6 feet of fall explained. If it turns out you're off by even one second, that's more than 1/8 of the collapse you've missed (176 feet of a 1,362 foot structure), assuming a near-terminal velocity conclusion to the event.
1) So what? The mere fact of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would have led to an instantaneous declaration of war, regardless of the level of casualties.
2) So there were just a few intervening events between 1933 and 1939 in the whipping of a frenzy in Nazi Germany. Only an absolute loon would posit the Reichstag fire as being "to kick off WW2." It was one of many, many events, and it was primarily to cement domestic political sentiments against the Left, not as foreign policy.
3) I didn't say anything did, but you miss the point I was making, which was that nobody was hurt in the Gulf of Tonkin. If that was enough to get the US involved in Vietnam, why did the government supposedly have to kill thousands in Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to get the same effect?
4) Aside from the fact that the US had already intercepted the Israelis' radio comms and therefore knew who the attackers were and that the Egyptian air force had been totally destroyed prior to that incident, your explanation makes perfect sense.
So apparently those objects must have been forced downward by an explosion to travel faster than the building they were just ejected from, right? Otherwise they'd just be projected outward but have the same downward acceleration. And somehow that explosion that accelerates them downward simultaneously does not provide any downward acceleration to the building in which it occurred?
That's rather impressive considering that there is no video anywhere that clearly shows the second half or so of the collapse clearly. It's just a big cloud. Any if it's more than 10.0 seconds (as you seem to be relying on), it makes a large difference at in terms of the assertion you're making. By the time 10 seconds have elapsed, an object in free fall will long since have reached terminal velocity. In other words, if you're off by even one-tenth of a second, that's an additional 17.6 feet of fall explained. If it turns out you're off by even one second, that's more than 1/8 of the collapse you've missed (176 feet of a 1,362 foot structure), assuming a near-terminal velocity conclusion to the event.
1) So what? The mere fact of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would have led to an instantaneous declaration of war, regardless of the level of casualties.
2) So there were just a few intervening events between 1933 and 1939 in the whipping of a frenzy in Nazi Germany. Only an absolute loon would posit the Reichstag fire as being "to kick off WW2." It was one of many, many events, and it was primarily to cement domestic political sentiments against the Left, not as foreign policy.
3) I didn't say anything did, but you miss the point I was making, which was that nobody was hurt in the Gulf of Tonkin. If that was enough to get the US involved in Vietnam, why did the government supposedly have to kill thousands in Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to get the same effect?
4) Aside from the fact that the US had already intercepted the Israelis' radio comms and therefore knew who the attackers were and that the Egyptian air force had been totally destroyed prior to that incident, your explanation makes perfect sense.
So apparently those objects must have been forced downward by an explosion to travel faster than the building they were just ejected from, right? Otherwise they'd just be projected outward but have the same downward acceleration. And somehow that explosion that accelerates them downward simultaneously does not provide any downward acceleration to the building in which it occurred?
Last edited:
ProfessionalMackem
Striker
This is the kryptonite that has been proven to be true?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ly-base-tap-maintain-life-study-suggests.html
Yes
http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...pearl-harbor-hawaii-was-surprised-fdr-was-not
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
Apologies if I misunderstood, but this has been consistently flagged and hushed since the late 40's
Last edited:
Redan_White
Winger
Hardly surprising, everyone wants their family alive and well!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)
The world is filled with people who rubber neck but don't want to get involved. I have seen this first hand after a major accident where I was hurt people gawped but when asked to help just melted away. It's the brave who question and stand up, the sheep just run away, human nature, people don't want to believe anything that unsettles their cosy little existence!
Last edited:
SYB_DC
Winger
Why would there be any? It was before 9 am on a perfectly normal Tuesday morning. Tourists aren't around then videotaping things and everyone's in a hurry trying to get to work.
There is, however, audio of it from a news report that was being live filmed at the time. (The fence there is the churchyard at Trinity, which is a couple blocks away): http://www.military.com/video/opera...tc-video-of-first-plane-attack/1129030237001/
Kent_Mackem
Striker
Why would there be any footage? I don't think the pilots tipped off the media to point their cameras towards the Twin Towers.
At first I thought this thread was a piss-take. It is starting to Dawn in me that some of the posters are being serious.
dangermows
Striker
Yes ya mad bastard. It was filmed from the streets below.
Eh? There's the world famous footage shot by some bloke working on the streets below.
Kent_Mackem
Striker
I don't think they caught the moment of impact. The camera swung round afterwards.
dangermows
Striker
Last edited:
dangermows
Striker
I'm absolutely amazed people didn't know there was footage of the first plane hitting. Thank fuck there is or people would have doubted that one too like the pentagon. Oh hang on...
ravydavygravy
Striker
SYB_DC
Winger
F'in hell. I've never seen that before.
yfc54
Striker
No need for the sarcasm. I just asked a straightforward question. There could have been footage because the planes had been reported as being hijacked 22 mins before the first one hit so you'd think the media would have been onto it. Plus there's cameras all over the city so law of averages would say that it would show up somewhere.
dangermows
Striker
The media weren't notified til after the strike. And even if they were they weren't expecting it to fly into a building. Anyway, I digress, there is footage of it....
Kent_Mackem
Striker
It wasn't sarcasm it was genuine. There is no obvious reason for somebody to be /filming/ the Towers. Photos, yes, but filming?
- Status
