Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

9/11 Was.....fake?


  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#51 Mitch

Mitch
  • 1237 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 02:33 PM

Another misunderstanding.

If you watched the video, he'll tell you about an equation for free falling objects.

If an object is in free fall, at that height, it would take 9 seconds to hit the ground and be done, in which case, the buildings hit the ground in 9 seconds, thus meaning they were in free fall.

If they were not in free fall, the building would have collapsed in a time longer than 9 seconds, because it is not in free fall. The floor would collapse and decelerate as it gets closer to the ground.



Tell me... where the fuck do you get a building that big and drop it from that height? he has no facts on that. Theres no evidence. He just 'says' it takes nine seconds. Plus it how does it freefall when it's connected to the ground?plus windows would explode instantasouly in freefall like that.

also... your telling me the floors collapse BUT there in free fall? Makes no sense.

#52 Raillery

Raillery
  • 353 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 02:36 PM

Tell me... where the fuck do you get a building that big and drop it from that height? he has no facts on that. Theres no evidence. He just 'says' it takes nine seconds. Plus it how does it freefall when it's connected to the ground?plus windows would explode instantasouly in freefall like that.

also... your telling me the floors collapse BUT there in free fall? Makes no sense.


Windows did explode outwards, watch the video, please.

Everything falls at the same speed, it doesn't matter how large it is. Try it now, take a brick and a pencil, drop them from the same height at the same time, they will hit the ground at the exact same time, weight has nothing to do with freefall speed.

He knows that a building would freefall in 9 seconds because he did the math.

It freefalls when it's connected to the ground beceause the parts UNDER the collapse all the way down were exploded outwards, IE: they fell onto nothing.

#53 Mitch

Mitch
  • 1237 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 02:39 PM

First of all, I fail to see your point in this. Are you saying that the floors would have still fallen at freefall speed because of the ammount of floors falling on one another? Or are you saying something else, because you worded yourself very unclearly there.

Maybe you didn't understand what i was saying about the floors collapsing, I said that the floors fell at a freefall speed, I never said they didn't fall at all. I won't deny that all the floors falling on one another is more than the floors were meant to hold, got me there.

However,

If the floors did fall on oneanother, then the building would not have collapsed at the speed that it did. Look at the videos, you can clearly see the building falls straight down, no slowdown what so ever. Look at the seismograph that was taken when the towers fell down, it shows the exact fall time.

If the falls did fall on eachother the building would have gone down slower. Maybe the floors did fall on eachother, but the building went down too fast.

Clear?


Nope not clear.... So what... it falls straight down.... there was no earthquake to make it sway over it's MEANT to do that (fall straight down) You know good and well one of the most important building in this country has weakpoints so if it did fall it woukd fall in not out to smoother 50 other buildings... and that freefall thing can't be true... it's a HUGE building and there talking about just and object. It could have been a pencil or a girafe they tested. IF they tested. It's a huge building with floors and floors falling on eacher cuases momentem and cuase more weight.

#54 Alex

Alex
  • 6640 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 02:56 PM

Freefall thing cant be true...Youre kidding right?Weight has nothing to do with falling speed. Drop something weighing 1 ton or 1 kilogram.In fact even if you fire a bullet from 5 feet, and drop a bullet from 5 feet, its gona fall as the same time.
All the evidence points to the fact that the towers would not fall that way, that fast, and that soon by being hit by an airplane.

#55 Mitch

Mitch
  • 1237 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 03:29 PM

Freefall thing cant be true...Youre kidding right?Weight has nothing to do with falling speed. Drop something weighing 1 ton or 1 kilogram.In fact even if you fire a bullet from 5 feet, and drop a bullet from 5 feet, its gona fall as the same time.
All the evidence points to the fact that the towers would not fall that way, that fast, and that soon by being hit by an airplane.


wtf? A bullet from 5 feet dropped and a bullet from 5 feet shot, the shot one would hit first cuase of force. DUR. Floors = force, Force = faster faling.

#56 |nfinite

|nfinite
  • 181 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 06:24 PM

wtf? A bullet from 5 feet dropped and a bullet from 5 feet shot, the shot one would hit first cuase of force. DUR. Floors = force, Force = faster faling.


Um...

You say "Force"

You're not stating the "Force".

The force is "Greater Potential Energy Put Into the Bullet" and "Acceleration."

Watch the video please.

Now, the 9 seconds comes from the mathematical formula created by Galileo.

The formula is known as "Galileo's Law of Falling Bodies" which is Distance = 16.08 x Seconds Squared.

Now, plug in the numbers:

1362 = 16.08 x 84.7

Which is 9.2 Seconds.

#57 Mitch

Mitch
  • 1237 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 06:42 PM

Um...

You say "Force"

You're not stating the "Force".

The force is "Greater Potential Energy Put Into the Bullet" and "Acceleration."

Watch the video please.

Now, the 9 seconds comes from the mathematical formula created by Galileo.

The formula is known as "Galileo's Law of Falling Bodies" which is Distance = 16.08 x Seconds Squared.

Now, plug in the numbers:

1362 = 16.08 x 84.7

Which is 9.2 Seconds.



PLEASE STOP SAYING 'watch the video' I HAVE WATCHED IT MANY TIMES AND IT'S BULLSHIT.

Really do you not understand what I am saying? I KNOW FREE FALL FOM THAT HEIGHT = 9 SECONDS. But to me it didn't free fall. It was cuased by force of the impact from the uper floors hitting another floor cating in and caveing in. I'M NOT FUCKING DENYING THE FACT THAT FREEFALL TAKES 9 SECONDS.... Stop explaing that to me and read my posts.

#58 dck

dck
  • 2361 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 07:34 PM

Calm down dude :rolleyes: anyway, I think what Much was trying to say in his "Force" post was that he thought it was firing a bullet at the ground would fall at the same speed. What was meant was shooting a bullet from the same height as dropping it would show that they fall at the same rate. The bullet has to be shot straight though, and by that I mean parallel with the ground (not fired up or down or anything like that)

#59 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 07:52 PM

I'm sorry. but its fucking bullshit. Hundreds dying for a set up? Highly unlikely and cruel.

#60 Sean

Sean
  • 6188 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 07:58 PM

I'm sorry. but its fucking bullshit. Hundreds dying for a set up? Highly unlikely and cruel.

QFE <_<


ANYBODY that believes the freakin government decided to kill thousands of people to start a fucking war, then you obviously have something extreme wrong with your head. I dont' care about the facts of freefall and shit like that. The buildins fell, people died, it wasn't set up. stfu.

Edited by Sean, 23 February 2006 - 07:59 PM.


#61 Mason

Mason
  • 950 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 08:34 PM

All of you who argue so strongly that it was real are just as bad as the extreme conspiracy theorists.


Yet you argue so strongly that it was staged.

The steel from the WTC was shipped off immediatly after the collapse and has never been examined.


False. The steel was in fact examined. My source is a documentary aired on the Discovery channel that looked into the disaster.

Why did the concrete shatter into dust then? What has enough power to do that?

Explosives.


Are you saying that only an explosion caused by an actual explosive device could have enough force to completely destroy concrete?

In my opinion, it was not a staged attack, it was real. Your opinion just happens to differ from mine, that's all.

#62 Raillery

Raillery
  • 353 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:03 PM

PLEASE STOP SAYING 'watch the video' I HAVE WATCHED IT MANY TIMES AND IT'S BULLSHIT.

Really do you not understand what I am saying? I KNOW FREE FALL FOM THAT HEIGHT = 9 SECONDS. But to me it didn't free fall. It was cuased by force of the impact from the uper floors hitting another floor cating in and caveing in. I'M NOT FUCKING DENYING THE FACT THAT FREEFALL TAKES 9 SECONDS.... Stop explaing that to me and read my posts.


Exactly, the building fell in about 9 seconds. IE: Freefall time.

Are you saying that only an explosion caused by an actual explosive device could have enough force to completely destroy concrete?

In my opinion, it was not a staged attack, it was real. Your opinion just happens to differ from mine, that's all.


please tell me how else all of that concrete could have been pulverized.

Edit: Mason or anyone else up to it, please disprove everything else I said in my post on the 2nd page.
Edit Edit: What i meant by "All of you who argue so strongly that it was real are just as bad as the extreme conspiracy theorists." was that those who refuse to open their eyes to anything other than what they want to hear, are as bad as those who believe they were abducted by bigfoot and then carried into the lochness monsteres stomach where they met Elvis.

Edited by LowLow, 23 February 2006 - 09:09 PM.


#63 Alex

Alex
  • 6640 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:07 PM

About the bullet, I meant it was fired horizontally...
And the number of people died really meant nothing in the overall view to the people who staged it (If they did, im saying theoritically).

Think about it, the event gave Bush the ability to do anything and justify it pretty much.

#64 |nfinite

|nfinite
  • 181 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:12 PM

Think about it, the event gave Bush the ability to do anything and justify it pretty much.


QFE.

It was an event to do three things:

Get Rich, Spark Patriotism In America, and using that Patriotism to do whatever the hell he wanted to do.

I don't understand how some of you can shoot down cold, hard, evidence and say "BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT."

You act as though the Government hasn't killed off lives for their own personal gain.

You all might want to research our History as a nation before you start to spew "BULLSHIT" over a topic that is supposed to be a conversation between "Intellectuals."

#65 Raillery

Raillery
  • 353 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:14 PM

I don't understand how some of you can shoot down cold, hard, evidence and say "BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT."

You act as though the Government hasn't killed off lives for their own personal gain.

You all might want to research our History as a nation before you start to spew "BULLSHIT" over a topic that is supposed to be a conversation between "Intellectuals."


This pisses me off more than anything. It sickens me to know that there are people like this who live in the dark and refuse to try to see any light. It's all the news channels and mainstream media.

But that's another story.

#66 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:16 PM

Right. Bush would kill hundreds of people, blamed it on osama. cant even find osama. Sounds fucking ridiculous to me. The videos bs too i reckon.

#67 Raillery

Raillery
  • 353 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:19 PM

Right. Bush would kill hundreds of people, blamed it on osama. cant even find osama. Sounds fucking ridiculous to me. The videos bs too i reckon.


I know it sounds too horrible to be true, but look at all the facts everyone has posted. There is just too much evidence against the official government story to believe it.

#68 RandomNameIgnoreIt

RandomNameIgnoreIt
  • 1828 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:28 PM

I know it sounds too horrible to be true, but look at all the facts everyone has posted. There is just too much evidence against the official government story to believe it.



Care to point some of these 'facts' out? I've read nothing in this topic that could be considered factual evidence of this except by a severe stretch of the imagination.

#69 Sean

Sean
  • 6188 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:33 PM

Care to point some of these 'facts' out? I've read nothing in this topic that could be considered factual evidence of this except by a severe stretch of the imagination.

heh, qfe.

#70 Raillery

Raillery
  • 353 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:35 PM

Care to point some of these 'facts' out? I've read nothing in this topic that could be considered factual evidence of this except by a severe stretch of the imagination.


Explosive squibs can be seen before the collapse. http://llamaslap.com..._Demolition.swf (wait for it, it's towards the end).

There is something attached to the plane that hit the WTC. http://img97.imagesh...7/1152/d4hp.png

The building fell at freefall speed and shouldn't have. (See flash and previous posts)

The concrete is pulverized. (see flash)

Building 9 was demolished the same day, hours after, the towers collapsed. You can't set up a demolition that fast. Where did i get those facts, where can you fidn them? Look everywhere.

#71 RandomNameIgnoreIt

RandomNameIgnoreIt
  • 1828 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:35 PM

Let me also add this:

*Usama bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11 in a video tape we have of him. Even the arab world has faith that he did it.

*That means if the US really did it, Usama bin Laden is really a lackey for us.

*Usama bin Laden existed prior to the Bush administration. Quite a good ways before. And he committed terrorist acts against us before. But if he's really our lackey, I guess you have to go prove how all those were fake too.

*Bill Clinton was at times heavily involved with issues regarding Usama bin Laden. I guess he had to know Usama was fake too, despite the fact that he never utilized him. Or did much of anything against him or involving him at all.

*Saudi Arabia acknowledges the existence of bin Laden as well as many other Arab countries that have dealings with him or know of him. I guess they're all in on it too. Or really dumb and no one in the entire country bothers to check facts. Ever.

*No one in the US government that has known of this (for the knowledge of this fake terrorist fellow to persist across administrations, as it would have HAD to as I have pointed out, at least a few people would to have had full knowledge of it) has ever let out the secret. Ever. They've all kept it, despite any fallings out with anyone, or knowing it is wrong.

*Any organizations that would normally be responsible for hunting bin Laden would have to have someone at the top that made sure they didn't actually kill him. Add more people to the pile of people that would know about it, but no one would tell.

LOGIC FAILING. CAN'T GO ON. Face it. 9/11 was real. This conspiracy stuff doesn't make sense.

#72 Alex

Alex
  • 6640 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:35 PM

Care to point some of these 'facts' out? I've read nothing in this topic that could be considered factual evidence of this except by a severe stretch of the imagination.

That would really be like starting this topic all over again..

#73 Raillery

Raillery
  • 353 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:39 PM

The tape of osama admitting to 9/11 is,

1.) Extremely blury, hard to make out the image.
2.) Was translated by a government official who worked closely with the administration. Did you translate the video for yourself to see what he had to see? The quality of the video is so horrendous it's near impossible to make out what he's saying, much less read his lips.

#74 RandomNameIgnoreIt

RandomNameIgnoreIt
  • 1828 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:42 PM

Explosive squibs can be seen before the collapse. http://llamaslap.com..._Demolition.swf (wait for it, it's towards the end).

There is something attached to the plane that hit the WTC. http://img97.imagesh...7/1152/d4hp.png

The building fell at freefall speed and shouldn't have. (See flash and previous posts)

The concrete is pulverized. (see flash)

Building 9 was demolished the same day, hours after, the towers collapsed. You can't set up a demolition that fast. Where did i get those facts, where can you fidn them? Look everywhere.


Find me a case where a full modern passenger plane full of fuel crashed full speed head on into a building. There isn't one. How do you or how does anyone else know this isn't what is supposed to happen when a gigantic fuel filled plane crashes head on into a building? No one does. They make guesses and claim them as fact. There's a reason simulations are done, and tests are run. Because number crunching and looking at completely unrelated things can't always tell you how it will happen.

How do they KNOW what speed the twin towers should have fallen at? How many gigantic towers have had their supports buckled by heat and fallen straight down? None. They're guessing.

It's all guesswork that people claim as fact. While ignoring all the obvious facts out there like oh... the passenger manifests and all the dead people on them. The phone calls out of the plane by civilians that are now, yes, dead.

And I'll say it again, if any of this was credible, more people would find it credible. The fact that rational society as a whole rejects it on the basis of its illogicality should be enough to clue someone in that it's not right. But I guess some people will continue with outlandish beliefs no matter how outlandish it gets...


That would really be like starting this topic all over again..


Not really... Because no one has pointed out many facts. It's basically people pointing out "random dude said this isn't how it's supposed to happen, so 9/11 is fake", and "hey, this is a big coincidence, 9/11 is fake". I'm not seeing a lot of facts here v_v Lots and lots of guesswork...

#75 Mitch

Mitch
  • 1237 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:43 PM

Exactly, the building fell in about 9 seconds. IE: Freefall time.
please tell me how else all of that concrete could have been pulverized.


So what if it fell in freefall time? That doesn't mean shit if it did or did not freefall.

Umm yeah.... Two buildings once named the tallest buildings in the world hit the ground and the cement gets hurt...... So simple if you just think about it eh?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users