This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

[28th Kingdom]

http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wtc.jpg

Before you look at that pic...what's the first thing that comes to mind when you see it?

Two planes flying into buildings and killing 20-50 people is a tragedy...but it doesn't have the CATALYZING effect of the buildings collapsing...and pandemonium ensuing - plus you collapse buildings you get BIG insurance money...like say 3billion+ - that's a nice day's pay.

PNAC's words are undeniable...they are telling you THEY CAN BENEFIT from a New Pearl Harbor....they are telling you, it will save them LOTS of time if they could just be so lucky as for a New Pearl Harbor to happen....dammit - if they can't get their New Pearl Harbor, than they would have to wait years....what does this all mean?

Well, I guess on top of being cruel merciless killers....they're also some impatient son-a-beewaxes.

 

[JonnyFive]

YES explosives...accelerate a collapse..because they quite literally remove all the resistance...which is what should slow a pancaking-style collapse. YOU CAN'T get faster than free fall speeds....AND IT DOESN'T matter the weight of an object...if you drop a cue ball and a 50,000 block of steel from 300 feet...they both hit the ground at the same time.

So SAYING that things were picking up speed...as the collapse progressed...is completely amateurish and unprofessional analysis. And NIST claims this very thing. If they aren't saying a pancaking effect was happening...than they can't say the floors were piling up and creating a heavier mass...that could potentially crush through floors faster. You can't have it both ways.

Did it occur to you that the reason that the reason the speed was increasing was because the resistance of the successive floors was more easily overcome by the rapidly increasing mass coming down? You haven't really done much to define the problem in any detail, let alone start to work it out.

If you want to claim that the speed somehow is suspicious, you'll need to post some technical information. Can you please show me your calculations and the underlying assumptions on which you base them?

If you can't, then I have no reason to take your word over the very detailed information in the NIST report.

But hey, you have read it, so you know what I mean. Right?

 

[HyJinX]

YES explosives...accelerate a collapse..because they quite literally remove all the resistance...which is what should slow a pancaking-style collapse. YOU CAN'T get faster than free fall speeds....AND IT DOESN'T matter the weight of an object...if you drop a cue ball and a 50,000 block of steel from 300 feet...they both hit the ground at the same time.

So SAYING that things were picking up speed...as the collapse progressed...is completely amateurish and unprofessional analysis. And NIST claims this very thing. If they aren't saying a pancaking effect was happening...than they can't say the floors were piling up and creating a heavier mass...that could potentially crush through floors faster. You can't have it both ways.

Ummmm...I think you can find the "Physics for Dummies!" book at any Borders or Barnes and Noble bookstore. You should really read that before you post another ridiculous statement like the one above.

You, my friend, are 31 flavors of moronic.

 

[28th Kingdom]

All falling things accelerate. On earth, the acceleration is approximatively 9.8m/s^2. That's high school physics. And the more floors you have above you, the more mass you'll have above you; again, that's incredibly obvious for everyone but you.

That's a lie. You can't fall faster than free fall speeds...YOU CAN'T unless you have some other unnatural force pushing down on an object....falling floors aren't pushing down...they're falling...and they will never fall faster than free fall.

 

[Horatius]

I hate you

(And big owl will get to hear of this. No extra elves for you this christmas, especially not the cute female ones)

No nononono! Not the owl! Anything but that!

And no cute female elves? How will I live?

 

[maccy]

http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wtc.jpg

Before you look at that pic...what's the first thing that comes to mind when you see it?

Two planes flying into buildings and killing 20-50 people is a tragedy...but it doesn't have the CATALYZING effect of the buildings collapsing...and pandemonium ensuing - plus you collapse buildings you get BIG insurance money...like say 3billion+ - that's a nice day's pay.

PNAC's words are undeniable...they are telling you THEY CAN BENEFIT from a New Pearl Harbor....they are telling you, it will save them LOTS of time if they could just be so lucky as for a New Pearl Harbor to happen....dammit - if they can't get their New Pearl Harbor, than they would have to wait years....what does this all mean?

Well, I guess on top of being cruel merciless killers....they're also some impatient son-a-beewaxes.

I know this is lazy but:

http://911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html

or, better still, read the whole document for yourself:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

more skullduggery in general:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

 

[T.A.M.]

given the reference in PNAC was wrt new intelligent Defense weaponry/tools, how did they benifiit from 9/11 and or the wars in afghan/iraq? How has any of those events improved the production of new intelligent defense weaponry or tools? Seems to me all it did was bog them down in wars where they use the same old street/ground weaponry.

But prove me wrong 28K

TAM

 

[Spindrift]

more about floors piling up, how do you explain this?
[qimg]http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912509.jpg[/qimg]

you can clearly see 2 concrete floor slabs with the remains of the trusses crushed between them (reduced to about 12 inches high)

Simple, there where some special thermite compression explosives that were planted to leave some of these kinds of red herring evidence.

 

[JonnyFive]

Two planes flying into buildings and killing 20-50 people is a tragedy...

All right, you're living in la-la land.

246 people died on the four planes (which means you're off by half, even if you discount the Pentagon and Flight 93). A few hundred more died from the impact of the planes. In what world are you living where "20-50" people were killed by the impact of those planes?

 

[Skibum]

Two planes flying into buildings and killing 20-50 people is a tragedy

More than 20-50 people were killed before the collapse. Other than firefighters the death toll would have been roughly the same if the buildings had not collapsed. Everyone from the impact point above was doomed to die once the buildings were hit by planes.

 

[maccy]

That's a lie. You can't fall faster than free fall speeds...YOU CAN'T unless you have some other unnatural force pushing down on an object....falling floors aren't pushing down...they're falling...and they will never fall faster than free fall.

What's the free fall speed then?

If you jump off a cliff how do you go from stationary to moving (falling) without accelerating?












clue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freefall

 

[28th Kingdom]

Did it occur to you that the reason that the reason the speed was increasing was because the resistance of the successive floors was more easily overcome by the rapidly increasing mass coming down? You haven't really done much to define the problem in any detail, let alone start to work it out.

If you want to claim that the speed somehow is suspicious, you'll need to post some technical information. Can you please show me your calculations and the underlying assumptions on which you base them?

If you can't, then I have no reason to take your word over the very detailed information in the NIST report.

But hey, you have read it, so you know what I mean. Right?

You want answers? Claiming an increasing mass size...means the floors are pancaking (stacking up) as they fall...with this theory...you can't account for the core columns....which were also wiped out...this is why an animation of NIST's version of the collapse would be just lovely...too bad they'll never make one...they might be exposed.

 

[Architect]

yoo Hoo, 28th You Fraud.......answer The Technical Questions That Already Proved You Were Wrong!!!

 

[Spins]

So SAYING that things were picking up speed...as the collapse progressed...is completely amateurish and unprofessional analysis. And NIST claims this very thing. If they aren't saying a pancaking effect was happening...than they can't say the floors were piling up and creating a heavier mass...that could potentially crush through floors faster. You can't have it both ways.

Oh man you are stupider than I thought, if I jump off my garage I don't hit the ground at my terminal velocity, it takes over 15 seconds of free-fall for a skydiver to reach their terminal velocity in the normal free-fall position.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That's a lie. You can't fall faster than free fall speeds...YOU CAN'T unless you have some other unnatural force pushing down on an object....falling floors aren't pushing down...they're falling...and they will never fall faster than free fall.

your right, and they didnt

whats your point?

 

[Spindrift]

http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wtc.jpg

Before you look at that pic...what's the first thing that comes to mind when you see it?

Two planes flying into buildings and killing 20-50 people is a tragedy...but it doesn't have the CATALYZING effect of the buildings collapsing...and pandemonium ensuing - plus you collapse buildings you get BIG insurance money...like say 3billion+ - that's a nice day's pay.

PNAC's words are undeniable...they are telling you THEY CAN BENEFIT from a New Pearl Harbor....they are telling you, it will save them LOTS of time if they could just be so lucky as for a New Pearl Harbor to happen....dammit - if they can't get their New Pearl Harbor, than they would have to wait years....what does this all mean?

Well, I guess on top of being cruel merciless killers....they're also some impatient son-a-beewaxes.

First thing? Gee those panels on the side are falling faster than the main collapse.

20-50 people? There were a lot more than that on the planes. Or did you think they would survive if the buildings didn't collapse?

$3 billion for something that would cost $10 to $12 billion to replace is a good deal?

 

[babazaroni]

Two planes flying into buildings and killing 20-50 people is a tragedy...but it doesn't have the CATALYZING effect of the buildings collapsing...and pandemonium ensuing - plus you collapse buildings you get BIG insurance money...like say 3billion+ - that's a nice day's pay.

Not 20-50. Over 1000 people would have died without the towers collapsing.

Those buildings were essentially destroyed without collapsing. Insurance would have had to pay either way.

The insurance money had to go to rebuilding. And it was not enough. The city of New York had to float 2 billion dollars worth of bonds to make up the difference.

Hardly a payday!

 

[JonnyFive]

That's a lie. You can't fall faster than free fall speeds...YOU CAN'T unless you have some other unnatural force pushing down on an object....falling floors aren't pushing down...they're falling...and they will never fall faster than free fall.

The floors also didn't just start falling at terminal velocity, and "free fall speeds" means nothing. Do you mean they were accelerating only due to gravity? If so, then no [rule 8]. No one here is claiming that any other force besides gravity was pulling the towers down.

Even if the bottom 2/3 of the tower just vanished from under it, the top 1/3 would take some time to accelerate to terminal velocity.

By the way, you're mixing up the concepts of free fall and terminal velocity. You wouldn't want to do that, as it makes you look like you don't understand even the simple high school concepts of acceleration due to gravity and the difference between speed and acceleration.

 

[28th Kingdom]

given the reference in PNAC was wrt new intelligent Defense weaponry/tools, how did they benifiit from 9/11 and or the wars in afghan/iraq? How has any of those events improved the production of new intelligent defense weaponry or tools? Seems to me all it did was bog them down in wars where they use the same old street/ground weaponry.

Haven't you seen the military budget sky-rocket since 9/11? MORE MONEY - MORE TOYS TO PLAY WITH. The reasons for us HIJACKING IRAQ...which WAS AN INTERNATIONAL CRIME - even if you think Saddam is evil...that doesn't mean what we did wasn't illegal...is too complex of an issue to discuss here...but, trust me - it's all about power and expanding the NEW AMERICAN EMPIRE.

 

[beachnut]

That's a lie. You can't fall faster than free fall speeds...YOU CAN'T unless you have some other unnatural force pushing down on an object....falling floors aren't pushing down...they're falling...and they will never fall faster than free fall.

What speed is that? State the speed sherlock?

You know you just called the truth a lie.

No wonder you have problem with the truth, you think it is a lie.

Therefore I suspect you concider your lies truth. Simple debunking on this.