• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fascinating and deeply informative mp3 in which researcher and Lecturer John Judge gives his take on 9/11.

Apparently when the Anthrax envelopes were sent they first went to some Tabloid Newspaper where the editor opened the envelope and died from Anthrax contamination. Strangely enough he was the guy who had first printed the story about Bushes daughter's drunk driving. That's just a tiny tidbit.

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-69500/TS-380476.mp3
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Facinating and deeply informative mp3 in which researcher and Lecturer John Judge gives his take on 9/11.

Apparently when the Anthrax envelopes were sent they first went to some Tabloid Newspaper where the editor opened the envelope and died from Anthrax contamination. Strangely enough he was the guy who had first printed the story about Nyshes daughter's drunk driving. That's just a tiny tidbit.

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-69500/TS-380476.mp3
Click to expand...

A tabloid publishing a story about some one DUI :confused:

Who'd thought?
 
bill smith said:
Fascinating and deeply informative mp3 in which researcher and Lecturer John Judge gives his take on 9/11.

Apparently when the Anthrax envelopes were sent they first went to some Tabloid Newspaper where the editor opened the envelope and died from Anthrax contamination. Strangely enough he was the guy who had first printed the story about Bushes daughter's drunk driving. That's just a tiny tidbit.

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-69500/TS-380476.mp3
Click to expand...
Can't do math for sound or flight so you spread lies here. What are you trying to make up this time? Do you make up delusions all the time?

A photo editor, Bob Stevens, of The National Enquirer's parent company
Click to expand...
You spread lies for what reason? Hate? Bias against someone? Why do you spread lies?
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
UPDATE: I spoke to Jason Donev at U of C Physics and Astronomy, he says he hasn't heard anything from these people and that requests from people like conspiracy nuts and "free energy" scammers are routinely ignored.
Click to expand...

Did you send him the link? How does he explain the 2.25 second free fall period?
 
cmatrix said:
Did you send him the link? How does he explain the 2.25 second free fall period?
Click to expand...

How do YOU explain firefighters seeing fire on every floor of WTC7, photos and video showing smoke pouring from every floor, the lack of shattered windows during the collapse and the lack of explosive signatures on seismic records of the collapse?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
How do YOU explain firefighters seeing fire on every floor of WTC7, photos and video showing smoke pouring from every floor, the lack of shattered windows during the collapse and the lack of explosive signatures on seismic records of the collapse?
Click to expand...

100% irrelevant. Stick to the GD topic at hand! 2.25 seconds of free fall means a violation of the conservation laws which means the official story is false.

Do not personalize the argument.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T.A.M. said:
I not only have highschool physics, but i have college level physics, in which i recieved a final grade of 90%. Therefore, as an expert, i can tell you with 100% certainty that the collapse of wtc7 as described by nist, did not violate the laws of physics.

Now, whats next?

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Explain the 2.25 seconds of free fall.
 
carlitos said:
Could you please explain the significance of "2.25 seconds of free fall?"
Click to expand...

Sure. Free fall means nothing is resisting the building's fall. Fire is not explosive. It gradually weakens steel. It can't simultaneously remove 8 stories of structure. Either some extra energy was involved in removing the structure that should have been in the way or some extra energy was somehow propelling the building downward (highly unlikely). The NIST fairly tale doesn't account for this extra energy so it violates the (conservation) laws of physics.
 
Ah. You're assuming because some part of the building fell without resistance, then "8 stories of structure" must have been "simultaneously removed." Gotcha.

Do you have a broader hypothesis of the day's events that includes this information?
 
cmatrix said:
Sure. Free fall means nothing is resisting the building's fall. Fire is not explosive. It gradually weakens steel. It can't simultaneously remove 8 stories of structure. Either some extra energy was involved in removing the structure that should have been in the way or some extra energy was somehow propelling the building downward (highly unlikely). The NIST fairly tale doesn't account for this extra energy so it violates the (conservation) laws of physics.
Click to expand...

It "violates the (conservation) laws of physics"... ok. Please show your work. How does NIST's report "violate the (conservation) laws of physics"?
 
cmatrix said:
Your "friends to the north" must be delusional psychotics most probably living in mental institutions. This challenge is completely unwinnable because the official story does indeed violate the laws of physics. If you knew anything about elementary high school physics you would clearly see why.
Click to expand...

Cmatrix, I know Dr. Donev and dozens of other physicists and engineers through my involvement in the Canadian Nuclear Society. Not a single bloody one of them falls for your bull@#$%. Canada is one of the world leaders in civilian nuclear power technology and "delusional psychotic" is not a term that applies to these men and women.

cmatrix said:
100% irrelevant. Stick to the GD topic at hand! 2.25 seconds of free fall means a violation of the conservation laws which means the official story is false.

Do not personalize the argument.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
Click to expand...

If you want to talk physics, then you are good and @#$%ed.

I asked you to explain the lack of shattered windows and seismic signatures. In truth that was merely a rhetorical question as I and most of the others here know that you can't.

The presence and detonation of explosives in WTC7 is impossible under the laws of this universe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Explain how explosives powerful enough to shred steel can't shatter windows.

Got physics?
Click to expand...

Wait... we should let him hoist himself in his own petard with his 2.5 second issue. Let's see if he can properly explain why it's bounded by resistence both before and after that period of the collapse.

Or see if he flounders about by throwing out buzzwords without properly explaining things. Yeah, like that never happens with these guys. ;):D
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Explain how explosives powerful enough to shred steel can't shatter windows.

Got physics?
Click to expand...

I'm the only one here talking physics. Why do you refuse to explain the free fall period, which is the whole reason for the challenge which is the topic of this thread? Instead you try to subvert discussion into another pointless JREFtard red herring debate on explosives.

Free fall means no resisting structure which means energy is not conserved which means the official story JREFtards mindlessly believe in without question is a crackpot theory that violates the laws of physics. Deal with it. I'm not falling for your sophomoric diversions.
 
Where in the bloody heck is this guy getting 2.25 seconds anyway?

WTC7 took a total of approximately 14 seconds to fall, IIRC.
 
A visible portion of the facade (top northwest corner?) fell essentially at free fall (no resistance, same speed as gravity would cause) for that long. During Chandler's video analysis he found it and NIST had to "admit" that he was right. How this relates to conservation of momentum, or relates to any hypothesis about what happened to the Solomon Brothers building is what cmatrix was about to explain.

ETA - train-wreck-long explanation here.
 
Last edited:
cmatrix said:
Why do you refuse to explain the free fall period,
Click to expand...

Why do you refuse to explain why the windows didn't shatter?

Here's a physics experiment. Take a hammer, smash a window. See that?
Now take that same hammer and strike a steel girder with it. See how the steel girder easily withstands the same force that destroyed the window?

Now you need to explain how your magic explosives destroyed the steel frame of WTC7 but not the windows.

Undamaged windows means no steel-rending explosive blast waves, which in tunr means that the looney tunes theory that syphilitic inbred half-wit truthtards believe in cannot occur under the laws of physics.

And you don't need a university physics prof to explain this to you anymore than you need a trauma surgeon to tell you how to apply a band-aid.

Deal with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom