Association Of Professors Defending BYU's Jones
Via: The Gaelic Starover, thanks, Daithí.
Association Of Professors Defending BYU's Jones
Sep 12, 2006 8:09 am US/Mountain
PROVO A national organization is coming out in support of a BYU professor placed on paid leave for his controversial theories about the September 11th attacks.
The American Association of University Professors says the school should not have placed the physics professor on leave for statements made outside of the classroom.
Steven Jones has published a paper suggesting the World Trade Center towers fell because of pre-set demolition charges -- not just because they were struck by planes.
General secretary for the AAUP Roger Bowen says academic freedom also protects statements professors make outside the classroom.
Jones says he only discussed his theory in class after students asked him questions about it.
A spokeswoman for Brigham Young University says what Jones said in the classroom and how careful he was about disclaimers are subjects of the university review.
- Login to post comments
Good
This man deserves all the support in the world.
BYU Backfire
BYU's decision is going to backfire, they picked on the wrong guy. Did anyone hear Alex Jones call in from New York, he was amazed at the number of police and firemen that were in full support of the 911 truth movement. He said many would even say so on camera! The worm has turned, momentum is ours, run with it!
page:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/aj_most_police_firefighters_now_...
audio:
http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/110906jones.mp3
and check this out:
Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/11/911.poll/index.html
So glad to hear about the cops!
As a veteran of the failed movement against the Iraq war, one of my biggest complaints was the way movement leaders encouraged a view of the police as the enemy, as shock troops, stormtroopers, etc.
There is no question that there are bad apples in every field, including law enforcement, and we should not tolerate serious abuses by anyone. That said, there are an even greater number of cops who are honest and caring people who are serious about doing their job well.
One of the 911 conspirators' goals has been to divide Americans so that we do not band together against them. Part of this strategy, as in the antiwar movement, involves the creation of a perception of any type of activist as a lawbreaker and every law enforcement official as a "head breaker". Thankfully, unlike the antiwar movement that was always led in large part by (fake) hard left organizations, the 9/11 Truth movement is comprised of concerned citizens from all political walks of life. These citizens understand that the issue of 9/11 is beyond politics, beyond class, beyond religion, beyond race and nationality, and beyond compromise.
Therein lies the hidden strength of 9/11 Truth--it has the potential to unify people across traditional lines of division both nationally and globally. What is at stake is the legitimacy of social order. Will perceptions, laws, and behavior be based on falsehoods cravenly engineered by a small handful of powerful criminals or will reason prevail over power?
We all have a choice--demand the truth without exception or give up forever any expectation that our lives are governed by laws, that our rights are anything but words on paper, that we will not one day be the victim of tragic loss as a result of someone's vile scheming. This is a test that we cannot afford to fail. The future is yet to be written, and could bring the fulfillment of many of our brightest dreams, or perhaps a realization of our worst nightmares.
There will be no tomorrow if we do not fight today for what is right. We must continue to reach out with urgency and confidence to our fellow citizens and impress upon them the importance of this moment in history. We must not and will not ever forget why we fight--JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED!!
RT _
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
Jack McLamb, Craig Roberts
Good commemts. If you'd like to hear more police that are in tune with what's going on today I recommend Jack Mclamb and Craig Roberts. these guys are educated, articulate and inspire hope every time I hear them. You can hear some of their stuff at
http://www.supportthetruth.com/audioSeries.php
(024, 028 prefix numers on that page)
www.rbnlive.com
www.gcnlive.com
Matthew Rothschild can't label these guys as leftwing conspiracy theorists
Talk to the cops
I just had two amazing experiences with cops in two days. On Saturday, a friend and I were doing outreach to two officers and before we could tell them anything one of them starts telling us all about WTC7 and how ridiculous it is to believe that the Pentagon could get hit so long after the first attack. Then yesterday when we were bullhorning in Oakland the local cop on duty told us he was glad we were there and thanked us.
I used to do my best to avoid cops. Now I ask them if they know about 9/11.
yes!
the worm has turned! When the government loses the support of the police and soldiers, they've completely lost. Embrace your local police, buy them a coffe and give them a dvd. Treat them to lunch and let them know you're infuriated about the epa treason at ground zero, shake a soldiers hand and tell him your doing all you can to stop the depleted uranium that's getting them sick. Tell your local government and citizens that you trust them more than the corporate whores in washington and that's why the constitution demands they have more control, because they're closer to the people. Unite and conquer!
YT and Glowform you all rock
After holding my nose for years of protesting the war alongside fans of Chomsky and Goodman who were in the habit of calling cops "pigs", it's refreshing to find folks like you who really get it. Unite and conquer is a frikkin fantastic slogan, glad you said it. So important too to point out the fact that cops and firefighters were some of the hardest hit by 9/11, those who were in the towers and those who worked around the clock in the days following. There is just no excuse for not honoring their service and sticking by them as they fight for their own justice against the disgraced EPA and Bush admin (of yeah, and America's mayor too--way to bring up his own woes to distract from the fact that it was his fault to begin with.)
Our soldiers too desevre our compassion and support. I think a tiny minority of them signed up or went over there with anything but good intentions. They have been lied to and have been through hell. Those who have been hurt on the other side are to be begged for forgiveness and we should not be such cowards as to dump anything on soldiers that we are not willing to dump on ourselves for not doing more to stop the lies and carnage. We could have ALL done more. That is why we must do this now and do it right. I personally will only feel like I deserve to be forgiven for my country's mistakes if I am doing everything in my power from today until the day death silences me to bring our American terrorists to justice, and would hope that my brothers and sisters in Pakistan, Israel, and elsewhere are of the same mind. One thing the MSM has gotten right--9/11 changed EVERYTHING. Indeed, the world will never be the same--THANK GOD!!
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
honor these soldiers
first a very humblig thanks for your comments. Very insightful and encouraging.
Here is an article that drew my attention:
Four veterans of the current war in Iraq and one supporter (a total of five young men) were detained at the Pentagon today after they attended an open house and left behind flyers providing information about the lethal effects of depleted uranium.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0609/S00159.htm
One of these guys is from San Diego, I intend on getting hold of him and doing an interview/report.
This is prime time to show that a community cares more about it's police fireman and soldiers than the government ever has. Read what the army times said about this administrations support for the troops, when the army times calls out the commander in chief it's blatant:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php
and other resources:
http://www.supportthetruth.com/fullAudio/001rokke.mp3
When it comes to comes to gaining support and uniting with police firemen and troops there is no better persuasion than the governments own acctions
It will indeed backfire
It was very shortsighted of the perps to insure that 9/11 truth is turned into an issue of academic freedom.
I don't buy explosives... sorry....
where have i heard this before.... hmmm...
I don't buy the explosives theory. WTC2 obviously crumbles and buckles falling sideways right at the impact point.
as seen here, the building top doesn't fall straight down:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3173519241898945782&q=towers+co...
look at this corner buckling from the weight of the falling sideways top:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=towers+co...
why did the top of WTC2 (shown above) fall sideways if the main core's were blown? shouldn't it have fallen straight down?
The other thing no one talks about is how is the core assembled? Each core beam was stacked on top of each other vertically end to end for each story (I'm guessing here). From collapse site pictures i've seen, they have 4 bolt holes on the bottoms. If 4 bolts is all that was holding the house of cards together... drop that several million ton 20+ floor structure on it (because the burned out / poked out entire one wall side) sideways...
I don't think those cores were made to hold up the top of the building alone. I think when the outter walls finally gave way... the 4 bolts holding each core end to end just couldn't stand the pressure of all the above weight falling down...
definetly explosives
If the top would not have had the lowerpart blown out from under it, it would have fallen off the top, you said yourself that it was leaning and therefore it should have fallen in the direction it was leaning. Then it suddenly goes from falling over to falling straight down (minor point) Also the blast squibs showing 60 floors below the collapse are extremely persuasive no other reasonble explanation except controlled demolitions could account for this (major point). But the real key is wtc7. WTC7 fell at free fall speed, this means there was no significant resistance to the falling builing. So in order to believe there were no explosives you would have to believe that crushing and pulverizing of steel beams and concrete offered no resistance to the falling structure. The top of wtc 7 fell 100 meters in 4.5 seconds. a brick falling 100 meters in air takes about 5.2 seconds, The air resistance PLUS the resistance due to huge steel beems being broken on the fall makes it impossible for wtc 7 to have a free fall speed without demolitions. Demolition removes the resistance to fall by the steel beams by breaking them befor they hit the ground, this how demolition buildings fall so fast. Remeber it's not just that wtc 7 fell, it's the way it fell that tells the real story. so you have to believe that air resistance on a brick is a greater impediment than breaking massive numbers of steel beams. The fall of wtc 7 violates the laws of physics with out the use of explosives.
I'd also like to say I respect the way you posed your argument, with facts and links, and without arrogance, an indication you are willing to listen to more facts and reasoning by those with a different perspective.
definitely? without even knowing how the core was put together?
You didn't address how the beams are held one on top of each other.
As far as blast squibs... no computer can simulate what is going to happen in this situation... which window's will blow from something blowing up (as simple as a propane tank under a sink or something... or the pressure from above blowing down elevators and stuff... You can't model that because you don't know what was what and what was where (elevators, doors open, combustables, etc.)...
well i'm no phsysicist... but if you stand on a building and THROW a ball... doesn't that extra energy make it go even faster?
1) beams held on top of each
1) beams held on top of each other, I don't know how they were entirly held together, which is why I didn't address it. One does not have to know everything to know enough. example: I don't know much about John doe number 2 in the Oklahoma city bombing, but I know that Tim McVeigh was involved (along with the feds, they really got caught because 2 of the bombs inside the Murrah building failed to detonate), but I know that the outter layer of airplanes are held together with rivets, which are tiny bolts, I also know that the core of a nuclear reactor and the vessel are held together with bolts (yes I worked in a nuclear power plant as a reactor operator, so this is no speculation) so to imply that bolts are weak and untrustworthy would be a false assumption. This offers nothing conclusive, but maybe puts things in a greater perspective.
2) It does not require computer simulations to understand blast squibs. Fluid mechanics (yes, fluid which includes liquids and gases) could easily show that the greatest pressure, air pressure would be near the compressing floors, but it's 60 floors away that bellow out a huge puff of smoke with explosive force. If there is a bomb that goes off, is the shockwake greater hear the bomb or further away? Clearly closer. So the windows 1 or 2 floors away would have blown out long befor a window blows out 60 floors away where the energy has greatly decreased (at a rate equal to the square of the distance; double the distance-1/4 the energy). Also the compression to volume would not have created any substatial pressure build up, since the walls were falling out the system was not sealed. Also if it were a sealed system, taking and compressing, say 2 floors of air and distributing it over 60 floors results in 1+2/60 atmpospheres of pressure. By comparison that equates to the pressure felt by someone in a pool at a depth of 1 foot. this could not account for the squibs even in the most nieve person.
3) Throwing a ball off a roof does not give it extra downward velocity unless you throw it in a downward direction, which means you supplied extra energy in addition to the force of gravity. So what supplied the extra energy fro wtc7? Where did a force other than gravity come from? There weren't any to compensate for the destroying of the steel support colmns to give the building a free fall speed. If you step off a building the only forces acting on your body are gravity and air friction, that is all. There are no other forces. Physics does not have an agenda, it only speaks truth, that's why I use it to understand what happened to wtc7.
Just so you know, I didn't like finding this out, I slept much better and was much more comfortable before I knew this, it almost makes me wish I had never studied physics, But in the end I am glad that I did because I'll take an scary truth over a convenient lie any time.
beams, squibs, and inertia
i can't even read beyond the first 2 sentences this is so ridiculous...
one doesn't have to know how the cores are built to wonder if they come apart easy? lol.. ok right... sure thing
regarding nuclear reactors being held together by bolts and bolts not being weak (under extreme circumstances I'm sure you mean)... I have one word for you:
Chernobyl
I never said for certain that the bolts are too weak and there by I conclude that the core connections just crumbled... I presented it as an idea as I hadn't heard anyone address it.
regarding squibs... the flaw in your argument is that you are only considering the source of the "squib" to be from the falling upper floors (compression) or from a planted explosive... There are other sources possible. Something crushed in the upper floors could have caused an explosion below... That building was certainly interconnected by electrical connections and who knows what else... I don't. But I'm not going to assume in a building of that complexity that the only source would have to be from compression or a planted bomb. I don't think it's fair to just assume that and then call it science.
regarding throwing a ball... of course I meant throwing it towards the ground. I understand you want to talk about WTC7... but I am talking about WTC2... Perhaps they demo'd WTC7 (it came down differently) but not WTC2 & WTC1. I'm just putting out ideas... I hear you. I wasn't there and I don't know how damaged that building was... Again, what is it's core construction? I think it's jumping to conclusions if you make conclusions based purely on how fast it fell.
If WTC1 & 2 core connection bolts were only strong enough to stop high winds and absorbing 2 planes like your "screen door"... perhaps the core connections were not strong enough to withstand the awkward downward inertia of how ever many thousands, perhaps millions of tons of falling upper floors... I think it was probably much more energy than what they designed for, but of course I'm just asking the question and speculating. But I think it's important to note that the 2nd tower to be hit fell first... and it was the one with more upper floors and resultantly more weight bearing down than WTC1.
moron
chernobyl was an explosion moron, and it was also a graphite fire you imbecile, you just put out garbage with absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
electrical connections caused an explosion? which caused squibs 60 floors below the collapse? that is not based on fact or logic, it's truely ridiculous.
you've shown your too stupid to even take seriously.
chernobyl explosion... WTC explosion... get it?
whatever disinfo agent... try again... my points kicked your ass... Chernobyl was an explosion (and the bolts didn't hold). So was there an explosion in the towers... and the bolts didn't hold (is what I'm suggesting)... If you're going to argue... please try to not make yourself look so foolish
what explosion
unless it was explosions from demolitions. if no demlitions then what explosions. (and don't be an idiot and say from jet fuel, the jet fuel burned off long before the building collapse and the fires were almost out) first you say there were no explosives now you say there were explosions. That doesn't make sense. You've completely contradicted yourself again. Please take a physics course (preferably calculus based). then this will all become obvious.
and how do you know the bolts didn't hold? which bolts didn't hold? did they all fail? Are you sure it wasn't the pressure relief collar that didn.t get ripped to shreds? where's your evidence that the bolts failed? where is your evidence chernobyl had bolts? You are an idiot, not because you can't think, but because you won't. Go ahead, teach about a nuclear power plant since you know so much about chernobyl. The point is you'll spew out things you know nothing about just because your ego is bruised.
All this tantrum because somebody said you were mistaken. If your ego is that fragile then you have no business trying to enter a discussion about 911. We get government worshipping neo cons all they time, but we continue to put out facts and logic in the midsts of their name calling, unfrazzeled and undaunted. If you can't deal with the word mistake, that's not going to help. (if your less than 15 years old then I can understand)
Here is some info on the core assembly, specifically bolts
ok... here's the data...
http://tinyurl.com/ecqg3
plenty of math in there for you to examine... here's an excerpt about the bolts:
B.4 Examples of WTC 1 and WTC 2 Connection Capacity
B.4.1 Bolted Column End Plates
Collapse of the WTC towers resulted in failure of many of the bolts in bolted end plate connections asthe columns were subjected to large and unanticipated out-of-plane bending. In the majority of cases, theA325 high-strength bolts reached their tensile capacity and failed in the threaded stress area. The exampleshown in Figure B-7 examines the flexural capacity of the bolted end plate in a column in the impact areawhere the column plate thickness was 1/4 inch.The simple moment capacity of the bolt group is 20 to 30 percent of the plastic moment capacity of acolumn fabricated from steels with a 50 to 100 ksi yield point, assuming no axial load in the columns.
I'm sure with all your calculus, physics, and nuclear science expertise you'll have this information discredited in no time...
very good
These are facts which will help to illustrate my point.
Note the only force pushing this down is gravity alone.
The breaking of theses bolts (and beams, as well as the pulverizing of the concrete) requires energy, this energy comes from the falling structure, kinetic energy passed from the falling structure to supply the mechanical energy which broke the bolts (and the beams and pulverized the concrete). So every time this occurs, which it occured on every floor, the falling structure slows down due to the energy loss of breaking and pulverizing. It also slows down even more due to the added inertia of gained mass (conservation of momentum). then when the bolts (and beams) have failed, the structure begins picking up speed at the rate of gravity's acceleration (9.8meters per second squared or 32 feet per second squared) untill it reaches the next floor where the falling structure agian slows down in a transfer of kinetic energy to mechanical energy to break the next set and slows from the added inertial mass. this cycle repeats till the builing is completely collapsed.
Now, going back to wtc 7 for a moment (because it's quite conclusive and far easier to explian/understand than wtc 1 & 2) this is where the free fall time comes in.
For an object to have a free fall time there is no slowing down part, at all, not from the mechanical energy required nor from the additional inertial mass added. wtc 7 had a free fall time, therefore it had no slowing down at all. therefore the energy that broke the structure did not come from the kinetic energy of the structure, if it had then the building would have had to fall in a slower fall and greater time, due to the transfer of kinetic energy to the energy that broke the supports (bolts beams and concrete). But ther was no slowing down at all for wtc7.
There are only 2 ways this is possible:
1) the energy supplied for the breaking and pulverizing came from a source other than the kinetic energy of the falling structure, Like demolition charges.
2) the support of the structure was so weak it offered no resistance at all.
now 2 is not realistic because:
"the A325 high-strength"
these were high-strength bolts, not surprising in a hi-rise, the number of bolts (not exact) were about 4 per column (minimum) and the were 47 columns. about 50 stories high, this comes to around 8000 (low estimate) high strength bolts (as well as the steel beams and pulverized concrete) that had to be broken for the perfectly symmetrical fall of wtc 7. for this to have absolutely have no effect on the fall time is impossible, the energy required to do all this breaking of high strength material would have been very significant, meaning the building would have had noticable intervals of slowing down from the energy transfer and the building would have had to had a greater, much greater, fall time than free fall. Therefore 1) is the only possibility wothout violating the laws of physics.
"I would also point out from your link:
All double trusses were attached to every other
periphery column by a seat angle connection and a gusset plate that was welded to the spandrel and top
chord. Therefore, all truss supports had two trusses attached to the seat connection. "
so the welds also had to be ripped apart which is a huge energy transfer and also:
"The floor deck was also supported by alternate intermediate support angles
and transverse bridging trusses that were spaced at 3 feet 4 inches. The bridging truss also framed into some
periphery columns."
which again would mean the energy required would be greater. There is no way that this would not slow the fall of wtc 7 without demolition to do the work so the structure didn't have to.
Now, wtc 1 & 2 did not have free fall speeds, therefore we would actually have to use conservation of momentum to calculate the minimum fall time of those buildings and compare it with the actual fall time.
This is why wtc 7 is far more conclusive than the other two, and the bottom line as far as 911 as a whole is that if wtc 7 was a demolition, which physics tells us it was, then it was an inside job: physics of wtc7 proves demolition, demolition proves inside job.
If any of this isn't clear, please tell me, and be as specific as possible, it is very important that I learn how to explain this clearly.
I'm heading out, take your time I'll check it later
One point
"the were 47 columns. about 50 stories high"
You're referring to WTC 7 here, right? I don't think 7 had 47 core columns -- that's the figure for 1 & 2.
thanks
I'll have to recheck that. Other than that, please feel free to give me feed back, I need to be able to explian this clearly.
you've got inertia backwards
you said "Note the only force pushing this down is gravity alone" - only when the upper part starts to fall... then inertia from that hitting the next floor creates energy. And then that floor will break depending on how much energy is required. If there is more energy left over then it will have more inertia than just gravity to break the next floor, so it won't slow down as you say. This will repeat consistently if the inertia energy is greater than the energy required to break each floor. Each floor requires the same amount of energy to break it. it's not increasing.
you also said "It also slows down even more due to the added inertia of gained mass" - added inertia should mean it slows down? More mass falling and hitting an object means there is greater inertia and more energy. If I throw a ball off of a building towards the ground there is more energy. You are mistaking two falling objects of different weight falling at the same speed... we aren't talking about that... Sure, when a floor breaks it will fall the same speed to the next floor if it just suddently became freefallable. But it is being hit from above with a lot of inertia... and that inertia. The initial inertia from the floor above may start to slow down... but the all the accumulated floors above will keep hitting it... creating more and more inertia and weight on it at a very high rate...
You say that if wtc7 was demolished, that proves it was an inside job. I guess I don't agree... I also don't agree that if Cheney (according to Minesta's testimony) said the orders still stand that that means he either did or didn't want a plane shot down. Even if he ordered flight 93 to be shot down... I don't believe that conclusively means there was an inside job regarding the towers.
my terms are wrong but the meanings the same
well i've got my terms mixed up but the concept is stll the same. By inertia I mean kinetic energy. that kinetic energy of the upper part falling is, in my theory, greater than the required energy to break a floor. Yes, the potential energy in addition to the velocity added to the broken floor, again if greater than the required energy to break the next floor... will persist way long enough to get through all floors... way before it slows down enough to ever matter... and gravity is also increasing as we get closer to earth which increases the potential energy of each floor...
very good
this much easier to follow, I wrote the other part before reading this. I'll get to work on this tomorrow. It's good to see you do have a base knowledge of physics terms. That'll help us communicate smoothly.
cool
thanks for the feedback it's definetly going to help me refine my explanation. One of the problems with being a Physics tutor is that I forget what is known and not known by the general public, I'm used to being around people who are studying physics all the time (geek). This was not a good approach on my part to use inertia when I could have used mass instead. But since I brought it up I'll just make a couple of points of clarification (No Disrepect Intended At All).
inertia is the resistance to motion, for the most part it can be considered the same as mass, the more mass an object has the more inertia it has.
Serways (physics author used at most colleges I've attended and tutored at) definition of inertia: any piece of matter tends to to resist any change in its motion, this property of mass is called inertia, the word mass is used to describe the amount of inertia associated with a particular body.
when a moving body hits a stationary body, the moving body slows down. when 1 floor hits the next, energy is not created, it is transferred. Yes it absolutely slows down,
example: if you're skiing down a hill and you hit a stationary skiier you slow down and he speeds up, you now have more inertia because you picked up more mass but you also go slower as a result of increasing your (inertia).
Inertia is not a speed, it is a property of an object, so that's probably pretty confusing.
this is good, let me rewrite this using mass rather than inertia, that'll make it less confusing. Also the only proper way for me to do this is with math equations. I'll set up a web page tomorrow and start a full explanation. then you show me where you don't understand or believe my logic, at which point I'll revive it again, etc etc.
As to the last part, if it was a demolition, (for now say it was till I get the explanation fully understandable) then some one had to set the demolitions in the building before the attack, this was a building that housed the secret service, fema, fbi, and others, there is, in my opinion, no reasonable explanation a group of Arabs could have walked into that building woth those tennats and planted explosives. So the question is who could get access to a high level security building for extended periods of time and be able to bring in exlosives while bypassing the security measures, only someone with high level access and authority, that has to be be an insider. But I will listen to any reasonable explanation that could explain this. The Cheney part is only probable but not conclusive based on the mineta testimony (in my opinion), but I would have to say that looked at overall, it is highly probable that he had issued the stand down order, he was the highest ranking official there and normal military protocal was suppressed, so I think it is a logical and supported conclusion.
Thanks for your feed back, I found it very helpful. I'll look for your posts and let you know when my revision it's ready for your scrutiny.
more details of where i'm coming from
well I'm not sure but it sounds like you are agreeing with me on WTC1 and WTC2 assuming there was enough potential gravity energy given the weight of the upper part of these buildings to produce enough kinetic and then mechanical energy to break the first floor at the impact level... then that floor would have transferred through it the extra kinetic energy (beyond that needed for breaking it in my theory) and thus speed up more than just freefall gravity would provide and hit the next floor... and so on. Then I suggest process repeats and remains constant rather than slowing down. I don't see this slowing down if there is enough energy. I hate to use the comparison... but it's like those weight lifter guys that break huge stacks of bricks. There are spaces in between and if they hit it hard enough... it will break through all the "floors". If they don't provide enough energy... sure it will stop half way. Without knowing exactly the weights involved, how much energy to crush a floor, and how compromised the structure was... I would think it would be impossible to measure for sure.
Regarding building 7, it collapsed at the base unlike the towers... I see it's potential gravity energy as being normally supported by the base, but when it falls (given a comprimised base and some forward twisting of the structure as seen in the picture it sort of lurches forward in the upper left corner first) the base structure is compromised, and so at that moment it starts to "fall" on the weakest link at the bottom because it now has additional kinetic energy beyond just potential gravity energy as a result of gravity... especially given the weight of the upper floors falling onto the base. That would be a huge amount of energy that I would assume to be many times greater than the amount designed in the normal structure especially the base. I can't believe that a stationary object's potential energy would be the same as it's kinetic energy transferred when falling... that doesn't make sense. I can set a bowling ball on a glass table and it doesn't break the table... but if I drop the bowling ball from an inch above... it will probably break. A comprimise in the base could provide that "inch" so to speak.
Now I guess I could see it slowing down... but again... it's going to be the ratio of that falling energy in the upper portion compared to the energy required to compromise the design... in addition to the twisting which I'm speculating caused the designed structure to fail even sooner.
other structures that haven't collapsed
and by the way.. I went back and check out some other buildings that haven't collapsed before like the empire state building which took a large plane without collapsing. These structures have vertical supports across the entire floor surface (not just the middle like WTC1 & 2). That would mean a more reasonable relationship between the upper floor's potential energy as related to potential falling kinetic energy, and the energy required to break a floor.
but then that doesn't explain WTC7. But then I haven't looked into the design of that building. My theory on the empire state building is this. In those days they built cars like tanks... compared to today's cars. And WTC7 was probably built during the same era as the towers... so who knows how they might have made that ratio a little too big for comfort.
I hope you can prove me wrong... otherwise I don't think I'll be working in a skyscraper anytime soon...
good points
these are good points that I must address other wise my explanation will not be reliable. It may take me a couple of days to complete, but I look forward to your feedback as I progress, I will let you know. good job on the continuous thinking you are exhibiting.
Nope, nope, and nope.
In fact the tipping of the top of the south tower (as opposed to the north tower top that collapsed straight down) is a big indicator of explosives being used. You'll note that after beginning to tip to the side the momentum of the top section suddenly changes direction to straight down. This makes no sense unless the entire area of the undamaged bottom portion started to break uniformly and completely. given that the side to which the top was tipping was obviously having more force come down on it, we would expect an asymmetric collapse in the case of the south tower. The north tower on the other hand collapse exactly the same way as the south tower despite the different conditions at the onset of collapse. There was something, in other words, that the towers had in common, which as we can see does not include the nature of collapse initiation. For the end results to be essentially the same, it stands to reason that the common feature was explosive demolition. Not just that, but note that the top sections in each case are not falling intact and breaking the base as they fall--they themselves are being consumed. Since nothing was collapsing onto the tops from above, you have even less basis for your insistence on the absence of explosives--the only possible explanation for this disintegration is, again, explosives. Finally, on how the cores were assembled, there is no secret about it--they were solidly built with cross-supports connecting them. Watch: http://wtcdemolition.com/Building%20the%20World%20Trade%20Center.wmv
No offense if these are innocent mistakes on your part, but to confuse this issue with misinformation is really a punch in the stomach to the families of the victims of this heinous crime. There is simply no question that the towers could not have collapsed as observed solely from the damage from planes and fires.
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
beam connections end to end. tell me how they are connected
> This makes no sense unless the entire area of the undamaged bottom portion started to break uniformly and completely.
right... how the beams are held together end to end on top of one another..
just because the guy who designed it said it was designed to withstand this or that doesn't make it so... these guys make mistakes...
mistakes?
>No offense if these are innocent mistakes on your part
mistakes? fuck you asshole. that's pretty arrogant.
no respect
Your arguments have been shown to be unsupported in whole, but your response is to hold on to one microcosimof information about bolts in steel beams rather than look at the physics and logic which proves there must have been a demolition. You refuse to address the fall time of wtc7 and give some pathetic statment about THROWING a ball, as if something THREW wtc 7 to the ground. truely desperate and pathetic with absolutely no facts or supporting evidence. And now you've resorted to throwing a foul mouth tantrum. When I said I respected your question I obviosly over estimated you. Since Physics, logic and facts aren't enough for you, there is no point in addressing you position any more.
PS the demolition of wtc 7 isn't about buying or selling, it's about understanding physics based on facts, you have neither which is why you can't accept the truth about wtc7 and 911.
to arrogant twits who defend arrogant twits
you won't and can't address one very important piece of information. How were the building core's constructed... You just love to make glib assumptions and call it science... There are things called inertia... look it up
I was accused of disinformation. All I did was question the theory and you little pot smoking faggots wanna jump down my throat... Well I"ve got news for you burn out... i'm twice as smart as you.
not true
you were not attcked, you were bringing up points and a discussion ensued, I started by complimenting the way you asked the question, then YOU attacked with profane language, that's when you lost respect and curteous replies, I gave you solid answers based on physics that cannot be disproven, I admitted I didn't know all about the core building but gave explanations of what I did know that gave perspective, I explained about the squibs. Of course all this information was too inconveient for you, You're the one who couldn't handle it, your all ego and no knowledge. The explanation about wtc is entirely based on physics, it's irrefutable and you don't like it so you started pouting (it's obviuos in you comments, prticularly this one).
"i'm twice as smart as you." your ego has overtaken you. Glib assumptions, point it out and refute it facts and logic (mister twice as smart) or is that beyond you. (and I know about inertia, I teach physics was a reactor operator in a nuclear propulsion plant, that's why my comments are based in physics.)
core separation and free fall
you continue to arrogantly call your theory correct when it is based purely on the assumption that the only way the cores could collapse was if explosives were planted to cause them to separate... Yet you don't know how they were "naturally" even assembled... I'd say that's a HUGE ASSUMPTION.
And you keep talking about the speed at which it fell... yet you are basing your theory on the cores separating... which I am also... except from a different cause... yet you dismiss my cause even though you don't know the facts...
you might want to look up the word logic in the dictionary... because I think you are mistaken
respect me and i'll respect you back... otherwise no respect 4U
lol... I love how I present an argument and am arrogantly called mistaken... and then I'm the one who is disrespectful... keep smoking the dope there kid
mistaken
mistaken is not an attack (unless you're on your period. Are you?)
mistaken vs. innocent mistakes
telling someone you believe they are mistaken is one thing.
saying you hope I'm only making innocent mistakes and not hurting people intentionally is something else all together... and I won't stand for it bitch... I showed you the math... now let's see you knock it down... Jones didn't address it in the video... THATS MY POINT
Upper part consumed is not so strange at all...
...as upper part falling on the lower part is like two parts of the building crushing into each other - no difference between them, except for that the lower is supported by earth and the upper is not and should slow down.
Anyway, i think that much of the energy should be consumed by this crushing - so the collapse could stop or at least slowed much. I absolutely don't understand Bazant&Zhou assumptions about progressive collapse...
You are correct
Conservation of momentum absolutely requires the slowing down of the upper part. Not only from the increase in mass an inertia but also from the energy loss of ripping apart steel beams and pulverizing concrete. the only way for the collapse to happen as it did (especially wtc 7) with out violating the laws of physics is for explosives to be in the buildings.
upper part WTC2
supported by the earth? no it wasn't. it was supported by the very first set of cores... which were on top of the next set of cores... and so on...
It seems like some of you think the cores were forged to be 100 stories tall... they were in sections... which were probably only 1 or a few stories tall.
When the top 15+ stories of WTC2 fell on the rest of the building... that is inertia... which, in theory, should cause the building to collapse faster than free fall... perhaps the resistance that was there balanced out.
Video about construction
Good view at the core columns at 8m50s
Um . . . this is addressed in Dr. Jones' original work
Sorry buddy . . this point is addressed specifically in Dr. Jones original paper now found at Journal for 9/11 Studies Volume 3 pg 29 see below):
"We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They being to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then - and this I'm still puzzling over - this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing - and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
Sorry dude. But the scholars for 9/11 truth are vigorously pursing the amount of energy it would take to pulverize concrete in mid-air and whether a gravity-driven collapse alone can accomplish it. So far all the results only serve to support the demolition/explosives theory. It's the only explanation that obeys the laws of physics and acocunts for all the other data. Keep researching man. You're almost there.
excellent example
This is an excellent example (and practice) of what happens when some one tries to use conjecture to make a case. When they come across knowledgable participants, their argument falls to peices by producing facts and logic (and physics whenever possible). At that point they begin to squirm trying desperately to hold onto some minor point (there were bolts in the beam). the more the debate continues the worse they look until they finally throw a tantrum because they have lost the arguments of facts. think of what a crowd would perceive if the were watching this. If we stick to the facts and continue to apply logic and don't allow ourselves to be sidetracked we'll awaken the audience to the truth and expose people like rob as uncredible (as well as whining, egotistical, foul mouth, brainwashed apologists). When we come across a rob type, remeber it is the others who watch the debate that we appeal to. Stick to the facts and the facts will stick!
core seperation... either explosives or the design
yeah... I'm holding on to how the cores are constructed... that's not a big point... but ironically the cores seperating is the crux of your theory.... lol get real
rob?
rob? where'd you go rob? where are you? don't cry, we're just trying to educate you. rob? anyone seen rob lately? come on rob, learn accept and join. there's room for more truth, if you can handle it.
you still haven't addressed the core construction... why not?
Look... You people started on me. All I did was offer my opinion and ask some questions and you all jump down my throat and start with the "Buddy" this and "dude" that, and talking all arrogant like you know what's right and my questions and concerns are meaningless. And you STILL REFUSE to address the building construction. And so does Jones. He never addressed (from the video lecture I watched) how the cores are attached to each other. ITS A HUGE POINT. and when you jump down my throat I WILL TELL YOU LIKE IT IS... FUCK YOU ASSHOLE. because that's EXACTLY what you are... and you are probably the disinformationist along with jones and you need to keep the demo theory alive to discredit the movement.
FUCK YOU if you can't address the points I made instead of attacking me.
hypocrite
you haven't addressed the squibs or fall time of wtc, they prove conclusively that it was demolitions unless the steel columns was put together with bubble gum, why is this so hard to accept. Is your ego getting in the way of your intellect? Pot smoking faggots? Admit it you really are auditioning for fox news aren't you. You're doing quite well, Bill Oreilly should be calling soon.
bubble gum vs. reality... and it's NOT 4:20 so put down the bong
here's the data about the core construction and bolt weaknesses:
http://tinyurl.com/ecqg3
plenty of math in there genius... please post what you find incorrect in there. thanks. or is it 4:20?
There you go again, Rob....
We try to explain things to you but all you want to do is call people names when you don't understand. Look at it this way. If anything you're saying is true, then why isn't it in the NIST report? Why did they stop their computer simulation after collapse initiation and just say "and then it just kept on collapsing"? Why don't they mention these weak bolts you're talking about? Did you even watch the construction video I very helpfully linked to for you? How does your weak bolt theory account for the molten steel in the rubble piles? Were the bolts weak and very very hot as well? Why must you reveal the fact that you're twice as smart as us? Are you also twice as insecure? Were you surprised when no WMD were found in Iraq? Do you think they were moved to Syria? When that nutty child molester came forward recently, did you say "At last! Justice for JonBenet!"? You think maybe you could stop dragging the victims' memories through the mud of your blatant cover-up for the real killers? Hm?
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
evidence
see... in the face of evidence... you turn away... I called names because I was attacked... and I will continue to do so if I'm attacked. You're link url wasn't in your post. I don't think LOOKING at pictures and videos of the core being built is exactly science... You see... that's all you are basing all of your claims on... what your eyes see. Sorry... that's not science. They mention the bolts in the report I gave you a link for. I was accused of having no facts or data to back up my theories... quit bullying me dork. It won't work because you are a child
molten steel? I don't know... but that doesn't mean I'm just going to gloss over the possibility of the design being unable to withstand what happened... like you are ready to do...
Look... I've already made you and glowworm look like idiots so I know i'm smarter than you are... that's how I know... because of what you say.... lol
How old are you?
"Look... I've already made you and glowworm look like idiots so I know i'm smarter than you are... that's how I know... because of what you say.... lol"
Umm, no.
Go update your MySpace profile.
"uhmmm" and "no"... that's all you've got?
"uhmmm" and "no"... that's all you've got? You haven't added a thing the the actual content of the argument... please butt out if you don't have anything to contribute.
thanks.
Do you have reading comprehension issues?
You made an assertion and I rebutted it.
"Look... I've already made you and glowworm look like idiots so I know i'm smarter than you are... that's how I know... because of what you say.... lol"
There's only one person here whom YOU have made look like an idiot.
"That's how I know... because of what you say." Are you the Decider, too?
If you don't want puerile rhetoric like this to become part of your "argument" (and thus subject to refutation) then DON'T INTRODUCE IT.
Did I hurt your feelings? Sorry.
4:20 time to shave your armpits
you're an utter idiot... please go smoke some more pot or shave your arm pits perhaps.
I'll just let that one speak for itself.
Because it just sums up your rhetorical strategy so succinctly.
Keep researching
The physics department at BYU has collaborated with Dr. Jones using a special technique employed at many "non-mormon" universities (Stanford, MIT, and Harvard for instance) to look at what residue was left on the WTC steel after the attacks. After obtaining a number of samples of the steel from WTC1, 2, and 7 they found the presence a reaction known as a thermate reaction (which is signatory of a demolition job since thermate is patently made for this purpose only).
They had initially hypothesized that thermite had been used to bring down the and it turns out it was a derivative compound known as thermate combined with sulfur to catalyze the reaction (so as to cut through the steel like butter). The results are going to be published soon in the Journal for 9/11 studies after being peer-reviewed by a board of academics.
Your argument that researchers are ONLY looking at video and photographic evidence is simply not true. But I do appreciate your comment. It is true that the 9/11 truth movement needs more structural engineers to help analyze the collapse initiation and subsequent fall. Right now we only have a handful of them.
As for researching, I would encourage you read all of the articles in the Journal of 9/11 Studies so as to widen you foundational understanding of this topic. Thanks.
a book by Griffin is not a scientific journal
I recall from the Jones video at the end when he took questions. He was asked if the results were going to be published ina sceintific journal after review by his peers. He says yes. He is asked specifically what journal. He said "A BOOK". A book by David Griffin... that is not a scientific journal... sorry.
check the video for yourself.
I don't recall him saying the received samples of the steel in the video but I'd have to go back and check. I would think that the thermite find would be a big deal and would be at the forefront of his whole case as a scientist... I'm not seeing that from the video.
I'm not saying that scientists aren't looking at anything but photographs and video... I'm saying the everyday people like myself are sometimes just looking at videos that say "see" and "no other building ever fell" and it's very believable before looking at details.
Partly true
Well yes Dr. Jones published his original paper in a book by Dr. David Ray Griffin after it was peer-reviewed an unusual 3 times (1 of these reviews was a physicist and engineer). This original paper can be found in volume 3 of the Journal of 9/11 studies.
As for the results of his testing of the steel that was done in June he has not yet published the actual results yet. This is what I was refering to in my above comment. The preliminary results are described by Dr. Jones in the following video. Enjoy!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=529253447051382848
partly? lol... I'm starting to wonder about Jone's common sense
it's partly true that a book by David Griffin is not a scientific journal? ok sure
I'm starting to think Jones is the type of guy that couldn't change the oil in his car or fix something that's broken... The fact that he addresses the strength of beams rather than the bolts makes me wonder about his common sense. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen a "dr" who lacked common sense. He seems to overlook one simple commen sense law of phsyics... the weakest link is the first to go...
PICTURES OF THE BOLTED CONNECTIONs ... NO MELTING SHOWN
pictures of how the core pieces are connected by bolts... and see how they are broken? not MELTED
http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/fig-B-1.jpg
http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/fig-B-7.jpg
http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/fig-B-7.gif
4 little bolts holding together that big building=house of cards
you mean to tell me all that was holding together those buildings was them tiny little bolts?
well I think someone overlooked the weakest link.
those look like the perimeter columns
which were square, whereas the core columns were rectangular box columns. and regardless, the bolts locked the ends together but they weren't the only thing holding all the beams in place. I suspect the bolt design may well have been what allowed the beams to sway in the wind and not break. See this excerpt from Jim Hoffman's book:
http://wtcdemolition.com/NOVA-LIE.gif
That's for people trying to figure out who's who and who knows what they're talking about--I know that Rob and anyone referencing the web fairy already know these things even if they pretend not to!
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
WRONG AGAIN
wrong again. why don't you try looking at the construction photos and reading for a change.
keep an open mind
see... the problem with you guys is that you are so convinced by a video presentation or one physicist at some mormon college or whatever, that you are unwilling to look at evidence yourself. I look at both sides and look at the evidence myself. I'm not willing to discount anything or just take peoples word for anything. When you grow up... you might start to do the same (if you ever get off the dumb bong).
Look "Rob", you're the latest in a long line
Of people who appear one day and cast aspersions based on a faulty understanding of the issues, because unlike us, you have not been studying these things for years. To assume that we are all basing everything we know and talk about on one source, be it Prof. Jones or anyone else is patently absurd. You are dealing here with a serious community of researchers yet you act as if we are children who just haven't considered all the facts.
The reason we aren't all taking you as seriously as you might want us to is that you are woefully behind in your study of this subject and it is clear that your intention is not to raise valid issues but to give a false imprassion that there really is left much to debate about with regard to the controlled demolition of the twin towers. You come here and start throwing around terms like inertia, momentum, and kinetic energy as if they contained some magical properties that could bend the truth, if only you can combine them in such a way as to plant doubt in people's minds.
You ask about the specifics of the twin towers' construction? You obviously haven't tried to get your hands on copies of the originasl blueprints, otherwise you would know that they are being kept from public view--now why would that be? Maybe so that folks like you can refer to our lack of knowledge about specific features in order to support your claims that we are wrong without having to back it up?
Common sense is really all you need. We know the towers were solidly built. They easily withstood the impact of the jets. The jet fuel mostly burned off in the fireball. The towers each had a massive structure within a structure in the cores. 47 columns redundantly secured to one another. Surrounding these was a cage comprised of the perimeter columns, also securely fastened to one another. Between these two separate structures floor trusses connected to both supported each floor. The trusses were connected to the perimeter columns and to the outer layer of core columns. The planes were shredded by the perimeter columns (some of which also broke but remained connected to the structure) as they entered the building and promptly exploded. Protected by this first layer of defense, the core structure remained largely intact. Even if a few core columns had been broken, which is unlikely, the load again would have been redistributed to the sound columns and as we all saw, the buildings stood perfectly after the impacts, until the explosive collapse was set off.
What you are suggesting is that the towers stood for almost 40 years through wind and the occasional fire but that all the while they were balancing precariously on a weak structure so that a single puncture wound and the ensuing relatively small fires triggered a total failure of the entire structure from top to bottom. Despite clear evidence of the presence of explosives in the form of eyewitness accounts, squibs well below the colapse line, molten iron seen dripping out of the south tower and found in the rubble piles of all three buildings that collapsed (one of which was hit by no airplane, and of course the speed at which they fell. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear and only your desire to pin the blame for these events on Arab Muslims could possibly explain your still grasping for some other explanation, when even the government's own NIST report does not purport to prove or even explain the progressive failure, instead assuming it a priori and fudging their computer models to even just reach a point of collapse initiation. My God, man, what are you on? Don't you think we should at least get some testimony under oath from the owner of building 7 (built in the 80's by the way) who just happened to profit to the tune of around 4 billion dollars when the towers he leased just six weeks before collapsed in an unprecedented manner? Do you really think that looking into bolts is a better way to achieve justice for those citizens and firefighters who had the towers dropped on them?
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
several things
You assume I just started looking at this yesterday... more assumptions on your part.
the link i provided in a couple other posts by FEMA does address the bolts and that they were partly (at least) responsible for collapse. You say they don't try to explain the collapse. I disagree and provided proof.
Common sense does not just dismiss a jet fuel explosion as benign... sorry. That's almost laugable but none of it's laughable.
you say things like "the plane was shredded by this and the core structure remained largely intact" without any proof. The video shows the top tilting towards the entry point.. kind of like when you chop a tree down. That to me indicates the core was damaged on one side. There was a lot of angled hanging weight on those cores (their weakest link being their connections ie. bolts). Those bolts were stressed and heated. I only hear people talking about the steel beams failing at certain temperatures... Weakest link in the chain is not a theory.
I am suggesting that the design of the building was skimped on and they didn't take into account a top portion falling onto the remaining bottom. They may or may not have realized the potential problem... but my belief is leaning towards they overlooked it, either intentionally or unintentionally.
I saw the video of something that looks like thermite reaction coming out of the corner of the impact point. But no one seems to mention that it's coming out of the corner of the building.. not where the core is. I've also seen websites that show pictures as it falls of thermite glows on the end of "stems" seen as it falls... their problem is that these were outter fall beams...
I just saw a thing on TV last night talking about the new WTC7 and silverstein mentions that this building was built with steel beams throughout the structure... not just in the middle... to put new occupant's minds at ease... so there is more from silverstein to consider.
And yes, I think that looking at bolts is a better way of realizing, not justice, but at what could have feasably brought the buildings down... given at least the video documentation compared with what the FEMA report says.. rather than saying "shouldn't we get justice instead of looking at bolts" essentially. No... especially if you haven't looked at bolts.
I'm not saying nothing happened... I'm saying that I'm looking at everything first.
The video shows the top tilting towards the entry point..
Actually it also shows the top tipping towards the point where molten iron suspiciously looking just like a thermite reaction was seen pouring out right before the collapse...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptvqqgN4gYw&eurl=
And FEMA's report can be judged from this excerpt:
http://wtcdemolition.com/FEMA-LIE.gif
Note especially the deceptive diagrams--why would they try to confuse people? I think the answer is obvious...
So, "rob", keep trying!
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
wrong
i thought the thermite was on the core? then why is it coming out the corner of the building? because you don't know.. that's why...
and regarding that FEMA_LIE gif... it IS labelled for those who read it... and that photo on the left is not the only photo of one can find. The core columns are shown and the 4 corners with the heaviest columns are shown bigger. Perhaps you're reading into things
And I don't need to try.. I've already made so many points that you and the other guy can't respond to that it's quite pathetic and sad really.
response
According to demoltions experts such as Kevin Ryan of UL, the thermate would need to be planted both in the core and on the outer perimeter to achieve the near free fall collapse observed on 9/11. One demolition expert estimated that about 40,000 pounds of thermate would be required to accomplish the the WTC 1 and 2 demolitions.
The important question however is why did BYU observe the sulfidation of steel (a demolition signature) ANYWHERE in the steel strutures (much less all thre? The temperatures required for this sulfidation cannot be explained without a very high energy reaction such as thermate.
The video and photographic evidence of molten steel will be most abundant on the outer perimeter of the building for the simple reason that the outer perimeter is most visible to photographers and videographers. This seems obvious to me but you may disagree.
Lastly, speaking of not addressing a point, you did not offer an opposing explanation for how a few hundred thousand tons of concrete were pulverized in mid-air as indicated in my previous comment. This is puzzling since a gravity-driven collapse alone doesn't have the energy required to pulverize concrete. Do you have another hypothesis which can account for this? And if so then what is your hypothesis for why we observe this phenomenon?
long lines
and by the way... if I'm just another in a long line waiting for you to discredit me... why is it it is going to take someone "a couple of days" to do so?
lol ridiculous...
caught in another LIE
Ignore this loser!
This was a post by rob:
and by the way... if I'm just another in a long line waiting for you to discredit me... why is it it is going to take someone "a couple of days" to do so? (http://www.911blogger.com/node/2780?page=2 about half way down)
well, I was the guy who needed a couple of days, the reason I needed a couple of days is because after a couple of lengthy explanations (http://www.911blogger.com/node/2780#comment-68295) (http://www.911blogger.com/node/2780#comment-68509) on physics I realized from his responses he is so stupid I was going to have to include a crash course in mechanical physics just so he could begin to understand the the explanation. See how he lies after I explained I would need a couple of days so I could put in the math equations on a web page:
"Also the only proper way for me to do this is with math equations. I'll set up a web page tomorrow and start a full explanation." (http://www.911blogger.com/node/2780#comment-68539)
since I can't put in neat math equations on this blog, and he tries to claim this as a credit to his being so smart. Pathetic Liar is what he is. Also he knows nothing about physics and then tries to teach us about physics. Here is just a brief example of "rob" spewing much ignorance with great arrogance. (- indicates rob , ***indicates my comments)
- When the top 15+ stories of WTC2 fell on the rest of the building... that is inertia... which, in theory, should cause the building to collapse faster than free fall... perhaps the resistance that was there balanced out.
***inertia caused the building to fall faster than gravity, this was so stupid it was mind boggling! Clearly knows nothing about physics but that didn't stop him from try to teach evey one else about it.
- I don't think LOOKING at pictures and videos of the core being built is exactly science... You see... that's all you are basing all of your claims on... what your eyes see. Sorry... that's not science.
***visual evidence is not a part of science?
-He seems to overlook one simple commen sense law of phsyics... the weakest link is the first to go...
***this is not a law of physics and it's absoulteloy not correct if the forces are not uniform ( not to mention the buildings weren't held up by chains!! arrrogant ignorant moron!)
-then inertia from that hitting the next floor creates energy.
***No you arrogant moron, Energy is transferred, not created, conservation of energy!
-and gravity is also increasing as we get closer to earth which increases the potential energy of each floor...
***wrong agin stupid, the increase in gravity from 100 meters to 1 meters is about 1 millionth m/s^2, And potential energy gets smaller as an object gets closer to the ground. I'm honestly awed by the unbelievable stupidity of this statement.
- molten steel? I don't know... but that doesn't mean I'm just going to gloss over the possibility of the design being unable to withstand what happened...
***ignoring molten steel is willfull ignorance
-A book by David Griffin... that is not a scientific journal... sorry.
***How do youknow if you haven't read the book
- saying you hope I'm only making innocent mistakes and not hurting people intentionally is something else all together... and I won't stand for it bitch... I showed you the math... now let's see you knock it down...
***since you're too stupid to understand the math why bother bringing it up?
- Well I"ve got news for you burn out... i'm twice as smart as you.
-know i'm smarter than you are... that's how I know... because of what you say....
-you're an utter idiot... please go smoke some more pot or shave your arm pits peraps.
Again: I told him why it was going to take a couple of days so I could set up a web page with the equations for the free fall physics and he posts:
and by the way... if I'm just another in a long line waiting for you to discredit me... why is it it is going to take someone "a couple of days" to do so?
This is a blatant and bald face intent to deceive, the very definition of a LIE!! And he can't claim he didn't know since he responded to my post, He just thought no one would catch him in his LIE!!!
FOX news should definetly hire this guy, he'll fit right in.
a legend in his own mind. Ignore this loser!
This thought just occured to
This thought just occured to me: Since 36% of Americans believe there is a cover-up and it is at least somewhat likely the government was involved, and that viewpoint is getting professors fired (or at least potentially)...
Should professors be fired who come out in approval of President Bush? After all, his approval ratings are around the same percentage, maybe lower.
poll results
The channel 4 news report used the scripps howard poll because it was the lowest number they could find, check out these other polls:
Zogby Poll Shows Half of New Yorkers
Believe US Let 9/11 Happen
http://www.wanttoknow.info/zogby911
Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/
many polls
http://fawkesfiles.com/reality/polls.html
WE ARE WINNING THE INFORMATION WAR!
He deserves to be put on
He deserves to be put on trial for his crimes.
"Hanoi Jane" Fonda betrayed and slandered her countrymen
and had propaganda photos taken of her at the controls of
weapons used against her fellow americans.
She has never served a single day in prison.
"Jihadistan Jones" isn't a sexy celebrity. It is a grave dis-
honor that pretty rich people can get away with treason. But
those who can be succesfully prosecuted, should be.
Yes!
Awesome.
Where are Lynne Cheney's Flying Monkeys?
I haven't seen any reports of Lynne Cheney's "American Council of Trustees and Alumni" with regard to Prof. Jones' case.
http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2006/09/lynne-cheneys-flying-monkeys-...
"ACTA" did, of course, involve themselves in the cases of Prof. Kevin Barrett and Prof. William Woodward.
I suppose that this is because Professors Barrett and Woodward presented material in a classroom, whereas Prof. Jones involvement was publishing a paper.
I admittedly am quite ignorant of the workings of academic politics.
Has anyone anymore info here?
Has ACTA been completely silent on Prof. Jones' case?
As crazy as it sounds, I
As crazy as it sounds, I advocate freedom of speech speech for profs who brainwash their students with the inherently implausible story that 19 boozin' and brawling guys - who just hate everything about America but its strip joints - were sent by some other unknown guy in Afghanistan on history's first collective suicide mission, outfoxed the FBI and CIA and, with absolutely no one finding out about it beforehand, easily hijacked 4 airliners almost simultaneously, outsmarted all air defenses, hit the centers of military and economic might of America, drove the country into completely improvised and unexpected wars in Aghanistan and Iraq launched solely for peace and democracy, all of which was thoroughly investigated and exposed by a totally independent commission with absolutely no conflicts of interest.
Now's the time to suspend all cognitive functions, people, just to get through the day.
OT: When you're told America could not do such a thing...
It only takes about a 1hr history lesson to understand that just about every major conflict in recent history has been started on deception. Here are some examples, as well as events leading up to the modern "war on terror":
1933 Rise of the 3rd Reich
Germany burned down their own parliment building to blame it on the commies and get public support for a "war on communism".
1939 Germany Invades Poland
Germans bombed one of their own radio stations and then blamed it on Poland by dressing up a couple of German prisoners in Polish military uniforms and documenting the event.
1942 Attack on Pearl Harbor
The 1994 McCullum memo documented an 8-stage plan to provoke Japan into attacking the U.S. This way, Rosevelt could reneg on his promise not to enter the war.
1961 Gulf of Tonkin Attacks - Vietnam War
At least part of these attacks were a hoax - staged as pretext to get support for entering the conflict in Vietnam.
1962 Operation Northwoods
A plan to blow up American airliners and use other terror attacks within the U.S. was approved all the way up to the presidental level. Fortunately for us Kennedy rejected the plan - not too fortunate for him.
1967 6-Day War - Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordon
The Pentagon and IDF struck a backend deal to have Israeli forces attack the USS Liberty so that the staged event could be used to blame on Egypt. This would give the U.S. their pretext to enter the war. Sound familiar? Recall the recent 34 day Israel/Lebanon conflict. It was reported by Sy Hersh, among others, that U.S. officials had met with Israeli officials in the days leading up the the conflict. The U.S. gave the planned attack their blessing in the hopes that it would be a "curtain raiser for a conflict with Iran". Iran and Syria could not be provoked into retaliating, so the war ended - at least for now.
1997 The Grand Chessboard
In this book, neocon Zbignew Brezinski (national security advisor to the Carter administration) discusses his strategy for anglo-American imperialism in the middle East. He suggests that the American public would not support such a bold and agressive military campaign absent a "perceived direct external threat".
2000 The Plan for a New American Century - Rebuilding America's Defenses
Strikingly similar to the strategy put forth in "The Grand Chessboard", this thinktank discusses the need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event - like a new Pearl Harbor" on the top of pg. 51. A new Pearl Harbor type event is felt to be a pre-requisite for implementing the Bush/PNAC/Neocon doctrine. Plans for invading Afganistan and Iraq most likely already in place.
2000 - Presidential Election
Obviously these Neocon/PNAC boys needed very much Bush to be president. And they were even willing to rig the elections to make it happen.
September 11th, 2001 - The War on Terror
Need I say more? Not unlike the "war on communism", a war has been waged against "islamo-facism". In other words, an excuse to invade any middle Eastern country this Aministration chooses.
Now, do you still think these evil PNAC folks would not orchestrate 9/11 so that their plan can be implemented? Of course they would! Money corrupts, and when you're talking about an opportunity for potentially trillions, yes trillions, of dollars that can be fleeced from the American people and the treasury directly benefiting the supporters and backers of the war on terror, do you not think they'd be more than capable of murdering thousands of their own citizens to accomplish this?
We can never underestimate the power of money and the evil it creates.
History
There's a pretty decent compilation of History in 3 parts at:
http://www.supportthetruth.com
The number of whistle blowers and factual events that have pemeated this country is staggering. Check out the graduates from the school of the americas, it's literally a list of ruthless dictators through out latin america. And the school continues to function today.
send it to Matthew
send it to Matthew Rothschild. He rakes the movement over the coals.
http://progressive.org/mag_wx091106
LOL Rothschild. Is that his
LOL Rothschild. Is that his real name or is just a pen name which reflects his alleigance?
In my opinion, the goons made a BIG mistake
In my opinion, the goons made a BIG mistake by turning 9/11 Truth into an issue of academic freedom.
I second that
the same goes for their attempt to debunk 911 "conspiracy theories". We have an ugly article today for the oct here in Germany in the Frankfurter Rundschau.
Basically they say that the Bush admin debunks these claims, but did nothing to correct the false claims about connections between Al Qaida and Iraq. The title was: Washington's 911 myth burst:
http://www.fr-aktuell.de/in_und_ausland/politik/aktuell/?sid=008a98f0390...
No.1
Loose Change is once again no.1 on Google Video.
http://video.google.com/videoranking
Loose Chane exchange with Popular Mecahnics
Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas debate 9/11 with James Meigs and David Dunbar of Popular Mechanics. Link: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203
They did a great job, especially considering their young ages. Please watch the vid.
In this context, I would like to point out that they might have done even better if they had stayed on the offensive by consistently attacking the "official story," rather than trying to defend any alternate theory.
It is tough, especially in a short time, to defend alternate theories on 9/11, but it is relatively easy to demolish the official story because it is THIS story that must defend itself. If it cannot, which it cannot, then the rational conclusion is that a new investigation must be opened immediately.
This is basic logic/science--the parties that assert a theory are required by the rules of science to account for all of the evidence. One good piece of counter-evidence is sufficient to demolish any theory. Once a theory is demolished, new theories can be proposed.
It is clear that there is a great deal of counter-evidence to the official story and that THEREFORE the evidence must be reassessed and new theories must be offered.
If you are in a debate about 9/11, stay on the offense. Make your opponent answer the questions. At this stage of the game there is hardly any need to propose an alternate theory. Just attack the official story and watch it collapse like the house of cards that it is.
I saw this debate, I also
I saw this debate, I also think they did a good job.. they came across as sincere and obviously caring very much about this. The PM guys came off as too slick for their own good. :)
Btw, I see there are several newcomers on the Google Top100 list, among them "9/11 Press for Truth".
After the embassy attack, the neocons now target Syria
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR200609...
A Look at the Terror Group Jund Al-Sham
By The Associated Press
The Associated Press
Tuesday, September 12, 2006; 1:56 PM
-- The group Jund al-Sham, Arabic for Soldiers of Syria, has claimed responsibility or been blamed for a number of bombings
---------sound familiar? Once we were fed stories about "al Qaida", a group in Afghanistan...
President Chavez on 9/11 Truth
http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_p091208A.xml.html
great news,worth posting the whole thing.
Theory that U.S. orchestrated Sept. 11 attacks 'not absurd': Venezuela
Sep 12 2:23 PM US/Eastern
Theory that U.S. orchestrated Sept. 11 attacks 'not absurd': Venezuela
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez said Tuesday that it's at least plausible that the U.S. government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Chavez did not specifically accuse the U.S. government of having a hand in the Sept. 11 attacks, but rather suggested that theories of U.S. involvement bear examination.
The Venezuelan leader, an outspoken critic of U.S. President George W. Bush, was reacting to a television report investigating a theory that the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives after hijacked airplanes crashed into them in 2001.
"The hypothesis is not absurd . . . that those towers could have been dynamited," Chavez said in a speech to supporters. "A building never collapses like that, unless it's with an implosion."
"The hypothesis that is gaining strength . . . is that it was the same U.S. imperial power that planned and carried out this terrible terrorist attack or act against its own people and against citizens of all over the world," Chavez said.
"Why? To justify the aggressions that immediately were unleashed on Afghanistan, on Iraq."
Chavez has said the U.S. launched those wars to ensure its political and economic power.
The U.S. government says al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden masterminded the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"A plane supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, but no one ever found a single remnant of that plane," Chavez said, citing a television program he had seen on Venezuela's state television.
Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro raised the same theories in an earlier speech Tuesday, and called for an independent investigation.
"It's really worrisome to think that all of that could have been a great conspiracy against humanity," Maduro said. "An independent international investigation must be carried out one day to discover the truth about the events of Sept. 11."
I'm very glad to see that
I'm very glad to see that other professors are coming to Mr. Jones' aid.
This demonstrates the importance of solidarity.
The NY Times has a section
The NY Times has a section where they run all AP stories (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/aponline/news/index.html) - except for this one. Wonder why not? ;)
Just like with the L.A.
Just like with the L.A. symposium story, that got only reported by Reuters' India branch, but no other branches. How can an event in L.A. only be reported about in India?? It's obvious censorship.
but at least at MSNBC it's there:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13401534/
Holy shit! Get this on the
Holy shit! Get this on the front page immediately and email all the left gatekeepers@!
Counterpunch especially.
Counterpunch@Counterpunch.org
They've been singing the praises of Chavez for years ;)
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez said Tuesday that it's at least plausible that the U.S. government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Chavez did not specifically accuse the U.S. government of having a hand in the Sept. 11 attacks, but rather suggested that theories of U.S. involvement bear examination.
The Venezuelan leader, an outspoken critic of U.S. President George W. Bush, was reacting to a television report investigating a theory that the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives after hijacked airplanes crashed into them in 2001.
"The hypothesis is not absurd . . . that those towers could have been dynamited," Chavez said in a speech to supporters. "A building never collapses like that, unless it's with an implosion."
"The hypothesis that is gaining strength . . . is that it was the same U.S. imperial power that planned and carried out this terrible terrorist attack or act against its own people and against citizens of all over the world," Chavez said.
Raise your hand if you have sympathy for Giuliani...
Giuliani Fears His Health Hurt on 9/11
September 12, 2006, 5:37 AM EDT
NEW YORK -- Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who led New York through the horror of the 2001 attacks, said his health and that of his wife and aides could have been affected from exposure to toxic smoke from the burning World Trade Center.
"I spent as much time here as anyone," Giuliani said Monday, the fifth anniversary of the attacks. He said others potentially at risk included his wife, Judith; his spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel; and two deputy mayors.
Giuliani said anyone whose health suffered from work at the trade center site is "entitled to the same support, the same assistance and the same help that the families got who lost loved ones here."
Giuliani spoke to reporters after presenting checks totaling $60,000 to trade center victims' charities from former New York Giants head coach Jim Fassel's foundation
- source
That poor, dear fascist. I
That poor, dear fascist. I feel for him like I felt for Mussolini when he got dragged down by the streat by a mob and beaten to a pulp.
If and when the Chavez article gets posted, a different headline might be appropriate. his comments are a lot stronger than "not absurd". "plausible" could be used, for instance.
I can't help but laugh at
I can't help but laugh at the latest Chavez revelation; you should have seen Amy Goodman when she interviewed him, she was star struck for the first time in her career. Clinton didn't phase her but Chavez had her all coquetish like a school girl.
Cockburn has consistently praised Chavez for his initiatives on behalf of the poor.
This now begs the question: Is Chavez a "nut"? Will Cockburn call Chavez a nut like he did the rest of us? Or is he only comfortable using the term for "little people" like us?
Email him and ask him.
Chavez just got through saying the "inside job" theory is plausible, ergo, he is a 'nut'. ;)
Ask Cockburn to right an article condemning Chavez like he did the 911 truth movement.
Good Material for a 700 Club Special!
I'm waiting to hear what suggestions come from the Rasputin of Virginia Beach as a result of this.
Rasputin wasn't ALL bad ;)
Rasputin wasn't ALL bad ;)
Lionel yesterday
http://wor710.com/pages/46363.php
I've stopped listening to Air America. I listen to Alex Jones and sometime Lionel. I always like Lionel but not always the subject matter.
My email to Counterpunch: I
My email to Counterpunch:
I was upset to read the following today:
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez said Tuesday that it's at least plausible that the U.S. government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks."
I hope you will maintain your intregrity on this issue and pen an article ridiculing this "conspiracy nut" for his utter idiocy. After all, what's good for regular grass-roots activists is good for heads-of-state like Chavez. We're not like right-wing types, we treat people as equals. Right?
So I look forward to the article "Chavez is a conspiracy nut".
I also look forward to the articles defending the academic freedom of Stephen Jones, who apparently was put on leave because of his OPINION that 911 was an inside job, expressed OUTSIDE OF THE CLASSROOM.
I can't imagine that Counterpunch will welcome attacks by government officials against Stephen Jones but condemn them against Ward Churchill. That would imply monumental hypocrisy.
Thanks!
Someone get that Chavez
Someone get that Chavez article up on the front page !
cool
check out Jack Mclamb, he's in touch and does a great deal to reach the police and soldiers as well as empower people through a fully informed jury and jury nullification. check out his audio at:
http://www.supportthetruth.com
under the solutions title.
Amy Goodman sorely needs some good sex
...whichever way she takes it. Hugo could do the world a favor by taking one for the team in this regard. Viva Chavez!
-Verdadero Verdadero (Real Truther)
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
That is quite a contrast from your excellent response to "Rob"
And utter misogynistic crap. You should check out Stan Goff's blog. Seriously. The Feral Scholar will scratch your brain if you're not careful but you will definitely learn in the process.
Regarding the Chavez thing, I do think that Amy Goodman has an opportunity here to re-establish some of her journalistic integrity by not only covering this story but also following through. I suspect, however, that she will either ignore it or simply mention it in a couple of sentences during "headlines" and never speak of it again.
Agreeing with BCS
There IS something really irritating about her mannerisms and delivery, but why not focus on her brain rather than her genitals? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that the former has a much stronger role in informing her journalistic style than the latter.
touché - it was crude, tasteless and totally lacking substance
and I apologize for dragging the discussion down to that level. i also don't think her brain is the issue, it's the fact that she is an awful hypocrite--sanctimonious at the same time as she helps cover up for murderers. on the other hand, I don't see how the comment was misogynistic--I could just as well have said the same of the popular mechanics shills. but yes, it was stupid, no argument there.
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
I wouldn't call it stupid.
I wouldn't call it stupid. Read some of Stan Goff's writing to see how it's misogynistic. I am only starting to see it myself but I am nowhere near able to explain it coherently.
Hey, RT
I very much appreciate your response.
Regarding "how" the comment could be perceived as misogynist, I'd like to offer a very brief explanation. This is a very contentious area, and also my area of academic expertise (gender studies/ literary theory.) So I'm not trying to get all PC on you or rag on you for a comment that you happened to write down and many more undoubtedly thought. It's important to me because I want discourse about 9/11 to be open to anyone who can make a contribution, and I know from personal experience that when statements like "she needs to get laid" or "faggot potsmoker" (whatever that was up above, courtesy our new friend Rob) appear on a message board, a segment of the potential posting population instinctively feels unwelcome.
So, in a nutshell, the reason it is perceived as misogynist is precisely because people DON'T make parallel comments about guys like James Meigs. And if they did, it would mean something completely different, in terms of its connotations. Think about it and experiment with those two scenarios in your mind.
It is also subliminally threatening -- I am emphatically not arguing that you intended it to be -- because "she needs some good sex" translates much too easily into "whether she wants it or not." Again, I am not saying that's what you MEANT, but I'm giving you a perspective on how you might be READ.
This is meant as a friendly FYI, because your posts certainly indicate that you a a thoughtful, intelligent person, and I thought you might be interested.
Thanks for elaborating,
Thanks for elaborating, casseia. And RT, I should have written this earlier; I too appreciate your response.
BTW, Feral Scholar site rocks.
I've never seen it before. Bookmarked it instantly.
Thanks Casseia, excellent approach to conflict resolution!
I am in fact like many men a boy at times--was not raised to be politically correct. I have, though, always been open to reflection on things like this, and have more feminist and gay friends than almost anyone I know. I think your point of how things are read is key--I am a big fan of foucault et al and have deconstructed more meaning in my life than I have actually found. I in fact had to restrain myself from making other, similarly rude comments about Meigs and the other dude (true confessions of a real truther time!)
I think the lesson learned here is that cheap shots are cheap for a reason--you get what you pay for. My feelings about Goodman have more to do with the fact that she comes across as a tireless (and tired-looking) do-gooder, and I can't help but suspect that it may all be for show. She gets more credit than she deserves, as do too many others to mention, but since she takes some of our best potential allies and dupes them, it is particularly frustrating.
Again, thanks for spinning this lapse of mine into a constructive (deconstructive?) dialogue. We absolutely should strive for inclusion with our colorful commentary, not a poisoned atmosphere!
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
lol
lol... i've got a feelin "Real Truther" won't be procreating anytime soon...
Ignore this loser!
This was a post by rob:
and by the way... if I'm just another in a long line waiting for you to discredit me... why is it it is going to take someone "a couple of days" to do so? (http://www.911blogger.com/node/2780?page=2 about half way down)
well, I was the guy who needed a couple of days, the reason I needed a couple of days is because after a couple of lengthy explanations (http://www.911blogger.com/node/2780#comment-68295) (http://www.911blogger.com/node/2780#comment-68509) on physics I realized from his responses he is so stupid I was going to have to include a crash course in mechanical physics just so he could begin to understand the the explanation. See how he lies after I explained I would need a couple of days so I could put in the math equations on a web page:
"Also the only proper way for me to do this is with math equations. I'll set up a web page tomorrow and start a full explanation." (http://www.911blogger.com/node/2780#comment-68539) since I can't put in neat math equations on this blog, and he tries to claim this as a credit to his being so smart. Pathetic Liar is what he is. Also he knows nothing about physics and then tries to teach us about physics. Here is just a brief example of "rob" spewing much ignorance with great arrogance. (- indicates rob , ***indicates my comments)
- When the top 15+ stories of WTC2 fell on the rest of the building... that is inertia... which, in theory, should cause the building to collapse faster than free fall... perhaps the resistance that was there balanced out.
***inertia caused the building to fall faster than gravity, this was so stupid it was mind boggling! Clearly knows nothing about physics but that didn't stop him from try to teach evey one else about it.
- I don't think LOOKING at pictures and videos of the core being built is exactly science... You see... that's all you are basing all of your claims on... what your eyes see. Sorry... that's not science.
***visual evidence is not a part of science?
-He seems to overlook one simple commen sense law of phsyics... the weakest link is the first to go...
***this is not a law of physics and it's absoulteloy not correct if the forces are not uniform ( not to mention the buildings weren't held up by chains!! arrrogant ignorant moron!)
- molten steel? I don't know... but that doesn't mean I'm just going to gloss over the possibility of the design being unable to withstand what happened...
***ignoring molten steel is willfull ignorance
-A book by David Griffin... that is not a scientific journal... sorry.
***How do youknow if you haven't read the book
- saying you hope I'm only making innocent mistakes and not hurting people intentionally is something else all together... and I won't stand for it bitch... I showed you the math... now let's see you knock it down...
***since you're too stupid to understand the math why bother bringing it up?
- Well I"ve got news for you burn out... i'm twice as smart as you.
-know i'm smarter than you are... that's how I know... because of what you say....
-you're an utter idiot... please go smoke some more pot or shave your arm pits peraps.
***a legend in his own mind. Ignore this loser!
lol Sorry....but you're the loser...
it's obvious by the thread... you make assumption after assumption... like that I don't know calculus... I'm not here to get in a dork math contest with you little boy... I know what I think and believe... I presented evidence and all you and your little friends did was be arrogant and jump down my throat. fuck you. I don't give a fuck what you fucking think. If you were here right now... I would probably beat your fucking face in. You're the one that had to say "good point" after "good point" to the things I brought up... Shove it up your mother's cunt. I don't give a fuck what you believe and quite frankly I'd be more interested in ripping your fucking throat out that discussing anything with you fucking further you snot nosed green little pussy.
[dz: this language will not be tolerated, banned.]
dz rocks my world
Thanks, dz.
hit piece citing PM Debunking book
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,...
Media Debunking a Good Sign
Remember that the Mass Media picking up 9-11 conspiracy theories - even if only to try to debunk them - is a good sign. It is at least one step forward from the previous situation where they were just ignoring us. This means that more people will be informed on the topic and may be enticed to listen to the "conspiracy theorist" side of the story. This is the reason why Loose Change is top of the google video chart again.
What we have to do now is maintain the momentum. Use the opportunity to inform more people and drive the issue forward.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Ghandi
Dr. Jones email
Just wanted to make sure everyone knows, there is an alternate email for Dr. Jones aside from his byu address which apparently he no longer has access to.
If you sent him a note of thanks or support at that address, please send it again at this one so he is aware:
HardEvidence@gmail.com