[quote]SteelyD wrote:
One thing is for sure though, when in doubt, ALWAYS opt for ‘hot chicks’.[/quote]
The cause of, and solution to, all of life’s problems.
I have changed my stance. Thank you guys for shedding light into my world.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Gregus wrote:
And while were at it, explain building 7.
Scroll up.
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?
Um, high school physics. Also, try getting facts from places that aren’t nutjob conspiracy sites, I hear the truth helps.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s fair to resort to name calling, as I should remind you that dissent is patriotic and questioning the government is a citizen’s duty. Just curious as to what you believe about false flag events, if you can please give me your opinion on the JFK assassination and the Gulf of Tonkin incident and whether or not you believe the official story there? Also just curious do you believe that throughout history false flag events have been carried out?
[quote]Gregus wrote:
I have changed my stance. Thank you guys for shedding light into my world. [/quote]
Hey, no problem.
Can anyone name another crime scene where the evidence was quickly ordered to be sunk and recycled BEFORE a complete and full investigation is completed? Is this really standard procedure? Can anyone name one person that has been charged with the crimes on 9/11 or held accountable for the malfeasance that took place within the government that day?
A commercial jet was flown into the Pentagon, ostensibly the most protected office building in the country. This was not covert, and the fact that it happened is not acceptable. The plane was tracked for over 45 minutes before striking it’s target.
I think a full investigation into 911, and the crime scenes is the least the American people can expect. Instead of an investigation Bush fought tooth and nail against it for nearly two years before he acquiesced and nominated Henry Kissinger as the head of the commission.
I mean really, that is like hiring Michael Vick to investigate a dog fighting ring going on in the back yard of the house he lived in 2 years ago.
It is so absurd not to question this behavior that I shake my head in disbelief. No investigation at a crime scene? NONE! And people that question this are called names aimed at diffusing and ending any further discussion.
I think it shows great respect for the people that died that day to ask why NO ONE has been charged for their deaths, or held accountable for the failures on many levels of the government that allowed it to happen.
I think the fact is that people find it disrespectful to insinuate in any way, even by questioning the crime, that the US government was behind the crime or even knew about it. I think people cannot face the fact that their government would be any way involved in such atrocities, and therefor find questioning the crime totally unacceptable.
I will say one more thing; Bush and his administration was a coat of stupid painted over some very smart, evil motherfuckers.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Learn for yourself and leave me alone with your sarcasm.
No. You put this crap out there, back it up or shut the fuck up you disrespectful sack of shit.[/quote]
x3
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?
There is a phenomenon in which curved space-time results in directly-downwards acceleration of unsupported objects, rather than sideways or upwards. Spooky stuff.[/quote]
Bingo.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Can anyone name another crime scene where the evidence was quickly ordered to be sunk and recycled BEFORE a complete and full investigation is completed? Is this really standard procedure? Can anyone name one person that has been charged with the crimes on 9/11 or held accountable for the malfeasance that took place within the government that day?
A commercial jet was flown into the Pentagon, ostensibly the most protected office building in the country. This was not covert, and the fact that it happened is not acceptable. The plane was tracked for over 45 minutes before striking it’s target.
I think a full investigation into 911, and the crime scenes is the least the American people can expect. Instead of an investigation Bush fought tooth and nail against it for nearly two years before he acquiesced and nominated Henry Kissinger as the head of the commission.
I mean really, that is like hiring Michael Vick to investigate a dog fighting ring going on in the back yard of the house he lived in 2 years ago.
It is so absurd not to question this behavior that I shake my head in disbelief. No investigation at a crime scene? NONE! And people that question this are called names aimed at diffusing and ending any further discussion.
I think it shows great respect for the people that died that day to ask why NO ONE has been charged for their deaths, or held accountable for the failures on many levels of the government that allowed it to happen.
I think the fact is that people find it disrespectful to insinuate in any way, even by questioning the crime, that the US government was behind the crime or even knew about it. I think people cannot face the fact that their government would be any way involved in such atrocities, and therefor find questioning the crime totally unacceptable.
I will say one more thing; Bush and his administration was a coat of stupid painted over some very smart, evil motherfuckers.
[/quote]
Forget it. You can’t argue with people who already have invested in their train of thought. They are rigid thinkers who are incapable of processing variables and differing points of view. Such views are met with hostility as if you personally assaulted them. In other words, simple people who exemplify the “masses”. So don’t frustrate yourself with plain stupid. After all do you really need to acknowledgment of these individuals to confirm your views and beliefs? Of course not.
Look how easy it was for me to set some of the simple ones off by asking to be left alone in regards to sarcasm. A simple request with no insult to anyone but it was met with fierce hostility. That hostility is very common when people are confronted with uncomfortable thoughts. Don;t believe me? Challenge a religious persons views with FACTS, then sit back and watch. lol. A herd is always predictable to the Sheppard.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?
There is a phenomenon in which curved space-time results in directly-downwards acceleration of unsupported objects, rather than sideways or upwards. Spooky stuff.
Bingo.[/quote]
I guess you both have figured out how building 7 was actually unsupported, or somehow miraculously defied the laws of physics and fell at terminal velocity.
I am interested; on what scientific basis do you define building 7 as an unsupported object?
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?
There is a phenomenon in which curved space-time results in directly-downwards acceleration of unsupported objects, rather than sideways or upwards. Spooky stuff.
Bingo.
I guess you both have figured out how building 7 was actually unsupported, or somehow miraculously defied the laws of physics and fell at terminal velocity.
I am interested; on what scientific basis do you define building 7 as an unsupported object? [/quote]
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent timeâ??compared to the 3.9 second free fall timeâ??was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
http://www.nist.gov/…_qa_082108.html
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?
There is a phenomenon in which curved space-time results in directly-downwards acceleration of unsupported objects, rather than sideways or upwards. Spooky stuff.[/quote]
Honestly your attempt at witty humor falls short. Stick to what you know best. Steroids.
Above is the question I assume Sloth is answering. I have to “assume” because Sloth doesn’t really add any thought of his own. He simply quotes the government’s story.
I won’t bother to address the obvious bias of siting NIST analysis of the collapse, or refute the article by countering with unbiased analysis; but I will simply ask how does what you have quoted, and I paraphrased, answer the question above posted by Gregus? Your NIST article seems to reinforce the need to ask the question in the first place.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?
There is a phenomenon in which curved space-time results in directly-downwards acceleration of unsupported objects, rather than sideways or upwards. Spooky stuff.
Honestly your attempt at witty humor falls short. Stick to what you know best. Steroids.
[/quote]
Yet in days to come,you will be telling him “EXACTLY!” if it benefits your discussion on anything.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?
There is a phenomenon in which curved space-time results in directly-downwards acceleration of unsupported objects, rather than sideways or upwards. Spooky stuff.
Honestly your attempt at witty humor falls short. Stick to what you know best. Steroids.
Yet in days to come,you will be telling him “EXACTLY!” if it benefits your discussion on anything.[/quote]
If someone is along the lines of my thinking then i see no problem with agreeing. I don’t see your point to be honest.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?
Above is the question I assume Sloth is answering. I have to “assume” because Sloth doesn’t really add any thought of his own. He simply quotes the government’s story.
Sloth quoted the following:
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
I won’t bother to address the obvious bias of siting NIST analysis of the collapse, or refute the article by countering with unbiased analysis; but I will simply ask how does what you have quoted, and I paraphrased, answer the question above posted by Gregus? Your NIST article seems to reinforce the need to ask the question in the first place.
[/quote]
Unbelievable. The collapse didn’t happen at FREE FALL speed. It states right in the quote that it took 40% longer to collapse than at free fall speed. Only a portion happened at free fall . Like, you know, between stage 1 where the exterior columns are buckling, into stage 2 where they’ve given out completely, and before stage three, where the collapse is slowed back down as the upper mass comes crashing down through the lower mass.
"The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time�?�¢??compared to the 3.9 second free fall time�?�¢??was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below."
http://www.nist.gov/…_qa_082108.html
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?
Above is the question I assume Sloth is answering. I have to “assume” because Sloth doesn’t really add any thought of his own. He simply quotes the government’s story.
Sloth quoted the following:
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
I won’t bother to address the obvious bias of siting NIST analysis of the collapse, or refute the article by countering with unbiased analysis; but I will simply ask how does what you have quoted, and I paraphrased, answer the question above posted by Gregus? Your NIST article seems to reinforce the need to ask the question in the first place.
[/quote]
I agree with everything you wrote. Those are facts and there are alot of questions that werent asked and some that were asked but ignored and not answered.
Im also curious why hundreds of witnesses at ground 0 ALL reported hearing massive multiple explosions. The Firemen reported it sounding like machine guns firing. Others reported it sounding like the finale of a 4th of July fireworks show. Immediately after the buildings shook and started to collapse at the aforementioned terminal velocity. In other words, free fall speed.
Here is an architect who has some interesting insights and evidence of cordite.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?
There is a phenomenon in which curved space-time results in directly-downwards acceleration of unsupported objects, rather than sideways or upwards. Spooky stuff.
Honestly your attempt at witty humor falls short. Stick to what you know best. Steroids.
Yet in days to come,you will be telling him “EXACTLY!” if it benefits your discussion on anything.
If someone is along the lines of my thinking then i see no problem with agreeing. I don’t see your point to be honest.
[/quote]
I really didn’t expect you to.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?
Above is the question I assume Sloth is answering. I have to “assume” because Sloth doesn’t really add any thought of his own. He simply quotes the government’s story.
Sloth quoted the following:
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
I won’t bother to address the obvious bias of siting NIST analysis of the collapse, or refute the article by countering with unbiased analysis; but I will simply ask how does what you have quoted, and I paraphrased, answer the question above posted by Gregus? Your NIST article seems to reinforce the need to ask the question in the first place.
Unbelievable. The collapse didn’t happen at FREE FALL speed. It states right in the quote that it took 40% longer to collapse than at free fall speed. Only a portion happened at free fall . Like, you know, between stage 1 where the exterior columns are buckling, into stage 2 where they’ve given out completely, and before stage three, where the collapse is slowed back down as the upper mass comes crashing down through the lower mass.
"The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time�??�?�¢??compared to the 3.9 second free fall time�??�?�¢??was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below."
http://www.nist.gov/…_qa_082108.html [/quote]
Oh boy. You took the bait. Hook like and all. There are countless accounts of emergency workers saying they saw steel flow like water. They compared it to a foundry. Liquefied metal flowing like water. They all saw it. When NIST was asked about it they denied it. Look there is too much to go into. Look for yourself and open your mind. Noting to fear but fear itself.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?
There is a phenomenon in which curved space-time results in directly-downwards acceleration of unsupported objects, rather than sideways or upwards. Spooky stuff.
Honestly your attempt at witty humor falls short. Stick to what you know best. Steroids.
Yet in days to come,you will be telling him “EXACTLY!” if it benefits your discussion on anything.
If someone is along the lines of my thinking then i see no problem with agreeing. I don’t see your point to be honest.
I really didn’t expect you to.[/quote]
That’s fine.
You may not know but the security agency that was in charge of the towers and ensured it’s safety, and monitored who had access where and when was and is owned by…none other then…The Bush family. Amazing coincidence.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?
Above is the question I assume Sloth is answering. I have to “assume” because Sloth doesn’t really add any thought of his own. He simply quotes the government’s story.
Sloth quoted the following:
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
I won’t bother to address the obvious bias of siting NIST analysis of the collapse, or refute the article by countering with unbiased analysis; but I will simply ask how does what you have quoted, and I paraphrased, answer the question above posted by Gregus? Your NIST article seems to reinforce the need to ask the question in the first place.
Unbelievable. The collapse didn’t happen at FREE FALL speed. It states right in the quote that it took 40% longer to collapse than at free fall speed. Only a portion happened at free fall . Like, you know, between stage 1 where the exterior columns are buckling, into stage 2 where they’ve given out completely, and before stage three, where the collapse is slowed back down as the upper mass comes crashing down through the lower mass.
"The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time�??�??�?�¢??compared to the 3.9 second free fall time�??�??�?�¢??was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below."
http://www.nist.gov/…_qa_082108.html
Oh boy. You took the bait. Hook like and all. There are countless accounts of emergency workers saying they saw steel flow like water. They compared it to a foundry. Liquefied metal flowing like water. They all saw it. When NIST was asked about it they denied it. Look there is too much to go into. Look for yourself and open your mind. Noting to fear but fear itself. [/quote]
Who cares about liquefied METAL?