| Author |
Message |
|
| Guest |
 Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:43 pm |
 |
|
|
|
pharmakos - run this by the collective unconscious - or google. if someone catches on ill post more.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:32 am |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ADBox pharmakos - run this by the collective unconscious - or google. if someone catches on ill post more. Why don't you be a little less cryptic and enlighten the rest of us?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:59 am |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Chris_Morganti Well the only thing you can do is visit my website:
http://911physics.co.nr Fascinating.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:42 am |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rtf Why don't you be a little less cryptic and enlighten the rest of us?
its a mason word for human sacrifice.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:27 am |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Your post nor the link above disproved any of the scientific and engineering analysis gathered of the series of events leading to the eventual collapse of the WTC.
My websites presents evidence that goes against what popular mechanics says, and I have provided alot more information than they have, they haven't really provided references at all.
With regard to the "pod" under the plane (although this isn't a major piece of evidence) that supposed "expert" said the pod was basically a result of motion blur or something of that sort, if that is the case why does the flash appear on both towers?
Why does the footage shot by Evan Fairbanks show that this object actually has a shadow, I am sorry but reflections of light DO NOT have shadows.
This is an example of there propaganda.
Quote: In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear.
OUTRIGHT LIE! Go on Google search for pictures of Boeing 767's they don't have any bulge on there underside, this is a LIE! Quote: Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes
AN OUTRIGHT LIE! It only took 22 minutes!
Quote: investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel
BULL****, the tanks of diesel were in the basement of WTC 7, the fire was about midway in the building, yet more propaganda.
I don't think I need to go on....I honestly thought they would of done a better job of "debunking", shame on them, can't even write a decent article to counter us.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:28 pm |
|
|
|
|
I don't think it is that hard to accept that someone has done this.
I mean look at the cold war, billions of dollars ...or should I say trillions in weapons contracting, now thats gone we need the war on terror.
I have no doubt in my mind after like about 10 years of this, there will be another threat, probably even bigger that will mean trillions of dollars for weapons contractors....
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 7:03 am |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Chris_Morganti My websites presents evidence that goes against what popular mechanics says, and I have provided alot more information than they have, they haven't really provided references at all.
With regard to the "pod" under the plane (although this isn't a major piece of evidence) that supposed "expert" said the pod was basically a result of motion blur or something of that sort, if that is the case why does the flash appear on both towers?
Why does the footage shot by Evan Fairbanks show that this object actually has a shadow, I am sorry but reflections of light DO NOT have shadows.
This is an example of there propaganda.
OUTRIGHT LIE! Go on Google search for pictures of Boeing 767's they don't have any bulge on there underside, this is a LIE!
There is a bulge where the fuselage meets the wing: It's the aerodynamic fairing. Quote:
AN OUTRIGHT LIE! It only took 22 minutes!
BULL****, the tanks of diesel were in the basement of WTC 7, the fire was about midway in the building, yet more propaganda.
I don't think I need to go on....I honestly thought they would of done a better job of "debunking", shame on them, can't even write a decent article to counter us. Nothing on your website has proven a consistent conspiracy. The problem with theorizing the presence of such a conspiracy is that there needs to be just one theory. I have seen several different theories presented by several different people and most of them contradict each other on certain key elements.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 8:13 am |
|
|
|
|
Quote: I have seen several different theories presented by several different people and most of them contradict each other on certain key elements.
How is MY website inconsistent?
Quote:
There is a bulge where the fuselage meets the wing: It's the aerodynamic fairing.
I've seen several pictures of the of the underside of a Boeing 767 no bulge is there.
I will try and get some pictures to prove this.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 2:47 am |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Chris_Morganti ...the tanks of diesel were in the basement of WTC 7, the fire was about midway in the building, yet more propaganda.
I don't think I need to go on....I honestly thought they would of done a better job of "debunking", shame on them, can't even write a decent article to counter us. WTC7 fell late in the afternoon, with only minor fires. It had the look of a perfect, classic controlled demolition. WTC 1 & 2 had a very dramatic "Hollywood" style destruction intended to have a certain impact on America.
"19 cave dwelling Arabs with boxcutters did 911"
Wake up people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chris, you are a patriot and a hero
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:51 am |
|
|
|
|
Anyone ever play Jenga(R)???
Think of the WTC 1 & 2 as a Jenga(R) the game...think hard...real hard...ok that's good. Now think of taking a corner out of one side of the Jenga(R) stack, weakened structure...good...your brains are functioning...Now put a 2lb fishing lure in the hole you've made in the corner of the stack...good! What happens to the stack? It falls, simple physics.
Ok, after a brief lesson in structural physics you can understand that when you smash an 80 ton aircraft full of jet fuel (whether burning or not) into a building it will cause a significant amount of structural damage to the building and will add 80 extra tons not including fuel and passengers to the upper sections of the building. Thus fire...(yes you're correct) didn't bring down the WTC 1 & 2 but force of impact and weight caused the collapse.
Now about the "squib" theory...both buildings had how many elevator shafts, and during a fire or other distaster elevators are shut down plus there are many stairwells (forgive me as I don't know the exact number of elevator shafts or stairwells) if you collapse just one floor; debris in compression will travel down a stairwell/elevator shaft until it finds an opening of direct air (or makes an opening)...thus the debris would simulate a "squib"...I hope I haven't lost any of the hardcore conspiracy theorists...stay with me...good!
Last but not least...on one of many websites claiming to be physicists there is a cloud of "smoke" at the base of the tower. There is a simple explanation as this was the second tower that was struck. If you watch the video of the plain smashing into the building you see a large explosion and debris "falling" to the ground...now some of this debris was dust, insulation, papers, concrete particles and burning material from the explosion. And it just happens to appear directly below where the second plane struck. Jet fuel doesn't just go out, it continues to burn until there isn't a source of fuel.
Oh crap I have more..."pockets of fire"...are you a firefighter how big is a pocket, "two isolated pockets of fire" how big was the isolation 1 floor, 2 floors? Ever been a welder? What happens to steel when it is hot then is rapidly cooled by water suppression? It becomes brittle....what no one has taken metal shop...not yet...oh well.
Oh and there is still more...the Pentagon video (flash movie) was an excellent piece....of crap. I thought about the possibility for a fraction of a second. The video shows a close up view of the Pentagon...zoomed if you will showing a small piece of the actual distruction. My question is where are the pieces of the two airplanes that struck WTC 1 & 2...you don't see any debris from the aircraft in any of the videos...maybe they vanished too. Have you ever seen the actual thickness of the fuselage of a an airplane...it isn't too thick (I'd give you an exact gauge but I'm too tired)...Therefore is it very possible that these pieces were obliterated on impact (yes even at the pentagon).
Thank you for attending class! Hopefully you learned something and aren't completely self-absorbed.
oh don't forget my quote:
"Anyone who lives in the United States of America who does not like the government, believes the government would even think (just for a moment) to commit these "accused acts", hates what the soldiers (yes they applied for their job) do for us everyday, would rather live in another country than live here...in my honest opinion can get the F**K OUT, heck I'll even pay your airfare, but I get to pick your destination!"
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:05 am |
|
|
|
|
Quote: but force of impact and weight caused the collapse.
The buildings were built to withstand 500-600 % of their own weight for a week...
When the planes hit the load was balanced all around the tower, if you watch the video clips carefully you can see that the towers actually oscillated, for a couple of minutes after the plane struct.
The 9/11 Commission report admits that the fires that were powered by Jet Fuel only burnt for about 5 minutes.
So what caused the collapse of the building? Office furnite burning?
The NIST Reports ADMITS that by the time the fire fighters got to the fire, most of it was already out! (I am very suprised they would write such a thing...Read through it yourself.)
BTW In regard to Popular Mechanics, I have done an excellent job of debunking their Popular Mechanics.
http://911physics.atspace.com/inc/PM.htm
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
