Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Bush jr can barely fvcking read, he didn't orchestrate jack sh*t.

If you could contain your emotions enough to properly read the thread, you'd realize no one here accused Bush of orchestrating anything. Unfortunately, spout off like some kid being told Santa doesn't exist instead.

Why don't you add something relevant to the thread for once instead of whining. Something like your "math" maybe.............LOL
You complained in the other thread that people were attacking your moral character and you come in here and do the same.

Looser.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: rudder
The Navy shot down TWA flight 800!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally, I suspect the Coast Guard did it. They're tired of never getting any respect.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: rudder
The Navy shot down TWA flight 800!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally, I suspect the Coast Guard did it. They're tired of never getting any respect.

Gah! Fucking puddle pirates, I always knew they were up to something.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Bush jr can barely fvcking read, he didn't orchestrate jack sh*t.

If you could contain your emotions enough to properly read the thread, you'd realize no one here accused Bush of orchestrating anything. Unfortunately, spout off like some kid being told Santa doesn't exist instead.

You are right, I didn't in fact spend one second clicking on the link. I got enough from the OP's post and the next several responses to know it was in the same vein of rubbish as your thread.

Anyway, Santa does exist. I read about him on a truther forum.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
loose change web site their website

Why are you spamming for them. Do you get a commission?

 

[NaughtyGeek]

As long as our government runs rampant trampling on our freedoms in the name of 9/11, there will continue to be people questioning the government story of such. I do not for the life of me understand why all video of the plane approaching/hitting the pentagon was rounded up and the only footage ever released was what, 5 frames from a crappy security camera that really shows nothing. Does the government in fact want people to doubt the story?

 

[al981]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
As long as our government runs rampant trampling on our freedoms in the name of 9/11, there will continue to be people questioning the government story of such. I do not for the life of me understand why all video of the plane approaching/hitting the pentagon was rounded up and the only footage ever released was what, 5 frames from a crappy security camera that really shows nothing. Does the government in fact want people to doubt the story?

listen here you tinfoil hat nutjob. why do you hate america?

just because you hate america and the government can't tell the truth about oklahoma city DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE HIDING ANYTHING ABOUT THE PENTAGON OK WACKJOB?

see! both pentagon and oklahoma tapes SHOW NOTHING BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING TO SHOW. THAT'S WHY THE TAPES WERE EDITED OK? NO COINCIDENCES.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
As long as our government runs rampant trampling on our freedoms in the name of 9/11, there will continue to be people questioning the government story of such. I do not for the life of me understand why all video of the plane approaching/hitting the pentagon was rounded up and the only footage ever released was what, 5 frames from a crappy security camera that really shows nothing. Does the government in fact want people to doubt the story?

What do you expect, an HD video showing the plane hitting the side of the building? I believe in our previous 9/11 thread (not the other one currently active), a member here who works with security equipment said that those video cameras used for security are often fewer than 15 fps. At ~550 mph, there won't be more than a few blurry frames available. On top of that, most security cameras are positioned to catch cars and pedestrians, not airborne threats.

I'd encourage you to read the NIST report on the Pentagon hit as it gives a pretty detailed explanation of how the plane hit the building and how all the damage was caused.

The best question that can be asked is simply, if a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, then what caused that damage? We have photos of the debris, we have remains of airplane engines, and the damage can be pretty convincingly explained by a plane traveling at a high rate of speed slamming into a building.

 

[al981]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
As long as our government runs rampant trampling on our freedoms in the name of 9/11, there will continue to be people questioning the government story of such. I do not for the life of me understand why all video of the plane approaching/hitting the pentagon was rounded up and the only footage ever released was what, 5 frames from a crappy security camera that really shows nothing. Does the government in fact want people to doubt the story?

What do you expect, an HD video showing the plane hitting the side of the building? I believe in our previous 9/11 thread (not the other one currently active), a member here who works with security equipment said that those video cameras used for security are often fewer than 15 fps. At ~550 mph, there won't be more than a few blurry frames available. On top of that, most security cameras are positioned to catch cars and pedestrians, not airborne threats.

I'd encourage you to read the NIST report on the Pentagon hit as it gives a pretty detailed explanation of how the plane hit the building and how all the damage was caused.

The best question that can be asked is simply, if a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, then what caused that damage? We have photos of the debris, we have remains of airplane engines, and the damage can be pretty convincingly explained by a plane traveling at a high rate of speed slamming into a building.

Videotapes are for fools.

Just because a plane hit the pentagon doesn't mean our government has to show it. It doesn't even matter if it was a different plane than the one stated by the government (Besides, why would that matter anyway? It was durm terrorists anyway!)

Besides, our government has never edited or lied about any "bombings" in the past.

Why do you even post? You're just stating the obvious and wasting your time!

 

[EndGame]

just another whack job truther video

 

[OCGuy]

So do you guys actually share basements, or do you each have your own?

 

[bfdd]

We've all seen the South Park episode on truthers right? Can we just all leave it at that? The government can't do anything right, yet you think they pulled off the greatest conspiracy of all time? Right....

 

[Moonbeam]

We must burn the salem witches we must eliminate error must eliminate error, must eliminate error, must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error, must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error, must eliminate error, must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error, must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error, must eliminate error, must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error, must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error, must eliminate error, must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error, must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error must eliminate error

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

It was squirrels that did the base damage, it was basically a wooden structure! Besides it fell to both sides at the same rate which was near or close to (it's not the same thing, is it?) the speed of a falling lightning!

I know this because kylebeisme has copied math to prove it!

Well, based on the last bit I know I can safely rule out squirrels and the rest of the first bit.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: al981
Videotapes are for fools.

Just because a plane hit the pentagon doesn't mean our government has to show it. It doesn't even matter if it was a different plane than the one stated by the government (Besides, why would that matter anyway? It was durm terrorists anyway!)

Besides, our government has never edited or lied about any "bombings" in the past.

Why do you even post? You're just stating the obvious and wasting your time!

Do you have any actual evidence that it was a different plane and can you proffer any valid arguments that don't involve lame leaps to conclusion such as 'Our government did this, so therefore they did that.'?

You're another truther that never brings any actual proof of their claims but tries to argue by casting suspicion and aspersions. So why do you even post with such lame argumentation? Stop wasting our time.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: al981




Videotapes are for fools.

Just because a plane hit the pentagon doesn't mean our government has to show it. It doesn't even matter if it was a different plane than the one stated by the government (Besides, why would that matter anyway? It was durm terrorists anyway!)

Besides, our government has never edited or lied about any "bombings" in the past.

Why do you even post? You're just stating the obvious and wasting your time!

Typical twuther reasoning.

If a conspiracy sounds good to explain one event, why not use it to explain all events.

Fking bunch of morons.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: al981

Videotapes are for fools.

Just because a plane hit the pentagon doesn't mean our government has to show it. It doesn't even matter if it was a different plane than the one stated by the government (Besides, why would that matter anyway? It was durm terrorists anyway!)

Besides, our government has never edited or lied about any "bombings" in the past.

Why do you even post? You're just stating the obvious and wasting your time!

It matters what plane for a few reasons....
There were people on that plane who are no longer with us. That sorta implies that plane hit the pentagon building. You may infer that plane went into the Bermuda - govt created - Triangle and some other something hit the Pentagon if you wish.
IF you prove one plane you've proved them all. IF you disprove one you disprove them all.
Video is empirical evidence of the events it depicts.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1
Typical twuther reasoning.

If a conspiracy sounds good to explain one event, why not use it to explain all events.

Fking bunch of morons.

IF you 'proved' just one single bit of the 9/11 tragedy was a govt conspiracy versus a terroristic one would you concede that the entire mess was? Excepting WTC7 which stands apart IMO.

 

[al981]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: al981




Videotapes are for fools.

Just because a plane hit the pentagon doesn't mean our government has to show it. It doesn't even matter if it was a different plane than the one stated by the government (Besides, why would that matter anyway? It was durm terrorists anyway!)

Besides, our government has never edited or lied about any "bombings" in the past.

Why do you even post? You're just stating the obvious and wasting your time!

Typical twuther reasoning.

If a conspiracy sounds good to explain one event, why not use it to explain all events.

Fking bunch of morons.

wait. are you saying oklahoma city was a government conspiracy?

number0, pass me some of your tinfoil, clown.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: al981


wait. are you saying oklahoma city was a government conspiracy?

number0, pass me some of your tinfoil, clown.

?

I am just saying, when you're a twuther everything is a government conspiracy. Why is that hard to understand?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
I do not for the life of me understand why all video of the plane approaching/hitting the pentagon was rounded up and the only footage ever released was what, 5 frames from a crappy security camera that really shows nothing. Does the government in fact want people to doubt the story?

I'm guessing whoever made that decision wants to keep the waters muddied with people making speculative arguments about what hit the Pentagon, rather focusing on the fact that the fall of the WTC7 buildings required rigging them to come down.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
I do not for the life of me understand why all video of the plane approaching/hitting the pentagon was rounded up and the only footage ever released was what, 5 frames from a crappy security camera that really shows nothing. Does the government in fact want people to doubt the story?

I'm guessing whoever made that decision wants to keep the waters muddied with people making speculative arguments about what hit the Pentagon, rather focusing on the fact that the fall of the WTC7 buildings required rigging them to come down.

rofl.....coming from the man who can`t even do his own math and has to plagerize others work and call it his own...rofl........hahahahahahaaaaaaa hahahahahahaa

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

rofl.....coming from the man who can`t even do his own math and has to plagerize others work and call it his own...rofl........hahahahahahaaaaaaa hahahahahahaa

Where might I find this plagerized bit at... I've been looking and just don't see it.. I'm sure if you said it you can help me find it.

IF you mean this below... I've this already

"

Originally Posted by dtugg
Let's see your math proving that this happened and shouldn't have happened.

Sure, Jaydeehess was kind enough to provide the relevant equations:

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

an object of mass 'm' drops under the influence of gravity

the force on the mass due to gravity is Fg=mg

along the way another force acts in the opposite direction so it is a negative vector here.
call it the resistive force -Fr

The total force on the object is
Ft=Fg+(-Fr)
Ft=Fg-Fr

The resultant acceleration is given by
Ft=ma
Fg-Fr=ma

As Jaydeehess first noted, Fg=mg. So in the last equation he presented we can substitute mg for Fg to get:

mg-Fr=ma

As NIST noted in what I quoted above, the distance traveled for a period of 2.25 seconds was not distinguishable from free fall. As free fall is a situation where the resistive force of air leaves a?g, we can substitute g for a to rewrite the above equation as:

mg-Fr?mg

Now we can solve for Fr with simple algebra:

-Fr?mg-mg

Fr?0

This means that for every moment of the fall in time over the couse of that 2.25 seconds mentioned above, we have a 32.0 m (105 ft) section of the building providing a resistive force indistinguishable from that of thin air. So again, while it seems many here willingly believe impact damage and office fires caused WTC7 to fall as it did, I have to doubt such a claim just as much as I doubt the claim that Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty vanish into thin air, as both quite simply defy consistently demonstatable laws of physics."

Seems simple algebra stuff to me... and I don't see where he took anyone's math and claimed it to be his...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

rofl.....coming from the man who can`t even do his own math and has to plagerize others work and call it his own...rofl........hahahahahahaaaaaaa hahahahahahaa

Where might I find this plagerized bit at... I've been looking and just don't see it.. I'm sure if you said it you can help me find it.

IF you mean this below... I've this already

"

Originally Posted by dtugg
Let's see your math proving that this happened and shouldn't have happened.

Sure, Jaydeehess was kind enough to provide the relevant equations:

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

an object of mass 'm' drops under the influence of gravity

the force on the mass due to gravity is Fg=mg

along the way another force acts in the opposite direction so it is a negative vector here.
call it the resistive force -Fr

The total force on the object is
Ft=Fg+(-Fr)
Ft=Fg-Fr

The resultant acceleration is given by
Ft=ma
Fg-Fr=ma

As Jaydeehess first noted, Fg=mg. So in the last equation he presented we can substitute mg for Fg to get:

mg-Fr=ma

As NIST noted in what I quoted above, the distance traveled for a period of 2.25 seconds was not distinguishable from free fall. As free fall is a situation where the resistive force of air leaves a?g, we can substitute g for a to rewrite the above equation as:

mg-Fr?mg

Now we can solve for Fr with simple algebra:

-Fr?mg-mg

Fr?0

This means that for every moment of the fall in time over the couse of that 2.25 seconds mentioned above, we have a 32.0 m (105 ft) section of the building providing a resistive force indistinguishable from that of thin air. So again, while it seems many here willingly believe impact damage and office fires caused WTC7 to fall as it did, I have to doubt such a claim just as much as I doubt the claim that Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty vanish into thin air, as both quite simply defy consistently demonstatable laws of physics."

Seems simple algebra stuff to me... and I don't see where he took anyone's math and claimed it to be his...

Alright, this "math" debacle has gone on long enough. Kyle apparently doesn't even realize that his "math" is useless in this case because he fails to plug in any numbers for the mass of the building or the force of resistance, a resistance which he claims should exist. Without those numbers his "math" is completely meaningless when applied to WTC 7, yet he actually believes he has proven something. All his "math" does is solve a basic equation to show that when Fr=0, mass is subject to gravitational acceleration. Well, duh. Welcome to 8th grade. The math surely doesn't prove any of his spurious contentions concerning WTC 7 though, which is proof positive that Kyle hasn't a clue what he's talking about and doesn't understand the math involved, nor the physics, in the first place.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Alright, this "math" debacle has gone on long enough. Kyle apparently doesn't even realize that his "math" is useless in this case because he fails to plug in any numbers for the mass of the building or the force of resistance, a resistance which he claims should exist. Without those numbers his "math" is completely meaningless when applied to WTC 7, yet he actually believes he has proven something. All his "math" does is solve a basic equation to show that when Fr=0, mass is subject to gravitational acceleration. Well, duh. Welcome to 8th grade. The math surely doesn't prove any of his spurious contentions concerning WTC 7 though, which is proof positive that Kyle hasn't a clue what he's talking about and doesn't understand the math involved, nor the physics, in the first place.

Yes the numbers to prove the assertion are missing alright.. To do that analysis is mind boggling when one tries to sort out all the possibilities... In my mind it is like having two kings only on a chess board and trying to figure out the first move...

I don't think it can be done.. with less than a really good program and a really good computer and a year of time on it.. if then...

Simple stuff this is not..
It almost boils down to ... well, I'm not sure anyone can argue in numbers NIST's stuff... but in concept I think one can muster some argument.