What REALLY happened on 9/11, the truth of 9/11... carry an open mind. Options

[Silver]

your such a fucking idiot

[Frosty]

Okay, so 32.2 ft/s/s is in a vacuum. Fine. That wasn't my point. My point is that a vacuum is created beneath each individual floor as it is falling, in addition to the pull of gravity. (I guess I should mention here that a vacuum does exert a force; if you don't believe me, sip a drink through a straw and explain why the liquid rises) With such a complex matrix of forces, it is too simplistic to take the high-school notion of physics that the only forces acting on a falling object are gravity and air resistance. There are many more variables considering the specific structure in question, more variables than I could calculate.

I hate to break it to you, but in high school, they don't teach you the entire picture when it comes to chemistry and physics. They simplify it so that you can gain a basic understanding of the principles, and then once you get to college and grad school you finally learn the real picture. And guess what, the real picture is so complex that no one understands it. I don't want to shoot over your head here in case you haven't heard, but Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (which states, by the way, that it is impossible to know both an object's position and its velocity on a subatomic level) combined with the intrcacies of quantum mechanical theory render it impossible for us to know anything more than what is limited by our own assumptions (eg, that an object falls 32.2 ft/s/s in a vacuum).

What it all boils down to is this: even your grand ole physics guru at MIT is limited in what he can know. The best information he can give is based on compounded approximations, the kind that cause a dfference of .3whatever seconds to be within standard error. Wait a minute; he only goes to MIT?! Oh, man....

Anyways, you've got your video, so the world's a better place now, eh? (Shut up; I'm not Canadian)

[Too Exclusive]

Okay, so 32.2 ft/s/s is in a vacuum. Fine. That wasn't my point. My point is that a vacuum is created beneath each individual floor as it is falling, in addition to the pull of gravity. (I guess I should mention here that a vacuum does exert a force; if you don't believe me, sip a drink through a straw and explain why the liquid rises)

you obviously dont know as much about physics as u think u do. i think it's sad that 1. you know about the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle (as do i) but you don't know what makes the liquid rise in a straw and 2. that silver thinks I'M the idiot when i'm very good at physics, and i'm not the idiot here. if i were fighting for silver's side, i wouldnt be such an idiot, even if i presented the same material knowledge of physics.
now, here's why the water rises in a straw. it has to do with the difference in pressure created, or more simply, when u suck u remove the air so there's empty space. so the air pressure pushes down on the liquid outside the straw and forces it up the straw, simply stated. i've drawn u a diagram of a similar scenario about an experiment i did in 7th grade where we took a candle (put in clay to hold it up), and we put it in the middle of a tray of water, we lit it, then we put a jar over it. the water rose when the candle went out (due to oxygen starving) the reason the water rose was because the candle used the oxygen, creating a difference in pressures so the water was forced up by the outside greater pressure until the air pressures were in equilibrium. heres the diagram:

[Too Exclusive]

watch silver, he's gonna come in and say "you're such a fuckin idiot" again, even tho if u ask ANYONE who truly knows physics, they'll tell you that that's y it happens. i'm right on my physics frosty, face it.

[Silver]

you jerk off while typing your pro terrorist shit? seriously?
see you the kinda mark i would sell oregano to. a true sucker...

[Too Exclusive]

is that so... well then prove wrong my proving frosty wrong right there? see silver, i respect u and all, but ur problem is that most of the time now u just sit back and do nothing but say im an idiot and im aiding terrorists and im pro terrorists and shit. well ill tell you what... i AM a terrorist. no im not what you guys perceive as "terrorist" the guy who tries to blow himself up for allah... but i am what the FBI considers a true terrorist... someone who is able to think for himself, someone who knows the truth, and someone who defends the constitution. look at the FBI's flyer for terrorists... it lists defenders of the constitution/people who make numerous references to the constitution and the bill of rights as terrorists... among other things like animal rights activists... actually lemme go see if i can actually find the flyer.... http://www.ridersforjustice.com/Articles/f...alert_flyer.htm

[Silver]

reason's why i call u a dipshit

1.) 14 pages of you saying "the gov. lies"
a.) we know they do..... ruby ridge and waco tell us that.

2.) you expect american people to believe that another american non-extremeist(gov officals and a properity company) took out the wtc and killed thousands.
a.) you really need to grow up, and see the stupidity you spew. they knew it was going to happen 20 years ago, wtc was bombed a few years b4 9-11.... it was a terrorist target.
b.) you should have been aborted....we dont need you breading stupidity during war time.

3.) your goofy theory of the building falling. do you think thousands of people would walk into a building and say "OHHHH LOOKS THERE RENOVATING!!! <explosives all over and wires and people cutting main support beas and drilling blast holes to hold the explosives to destroy the main supports>
a.) reread 2a
b.) read 14 pages and see the answer. btw you email that dude and ask him for your own self???
c.) in the words of Red Forman "Dumbass!!" <that 70's show>

i give 2 shits if you respect me. you dont respect the foundation of american mentality and general good will. i dont live in a hole (well metaphoricaly speaking) i know the world is a bad place...but with the shit you talk i see you as a terrorist supporter. i would mouth ur ass given the chance, care less if ur 15 your Dad should do it. i see he dont have the fucking balls....

so see i dont give 2 shits....to me your no better then some scumbag in israel blowing up a civilan bus.

You are an asshole and need to move the fuck off my country!



This post has been edited by Silver: 05/27/05 12:30am

[Frosty]

Ok, here you go. You said "difference in pressures." I said "vacuum." What is a difference in pressures referred to as? A vacuum. You are correct on the issue of semantics, but the point still stands. The vacuum may not generate a force, but it removes a force already present that causes another force to effect motion. Sorry that I didn't feel like saying all that earlier.

Applied to the scenario at hand, air rushes out of the building, creating a "difference in pressure" if you like. I will try to explain it with the correct semantics here. The falling building then meets less air resistance than would normally be met, as it is "pushed" into the slight void created by the air pressure above it, causing it to fall faster than a normal object falling through the air. So the difference of .3whatever seconds, as I said before, could be partially (if not completely, although I would not venture to fully state that) explained there.

I was merely trying to simplify the concept for people who are not as attuned to physics. It would appear as if the vacuum "pulls" down on the building in addition to gravity, which is what I said. However, the correct physical explanaiton is that the air pressure above the building is the actual cause of the force, not the vacuum itself. Forgive me for trying to simplify things, but you are still left with this problem in your explanation, regardless of the words I used to describe the phenomenon.

You must learn the difference between arguing and discussing facts. Your statement would work in an argument or a debate, but a discussion of facts is not bound by the same semantical constraints as those situations. I'm sorry if that sounds condescending; I did not intend it to be. I have just noticed that you like to discredit someone for saying something in the wrong way when the effect of the situation ends up the same with the correct explanation.

And I'm sorry if I misspelled anything or if some of this didn't make sense; It's like 4:20 AM here and I just woke up

This post has been edited by Frosty: 05/27/05 4:23am

[Too Exclusive]

you know what you sound like silver? the guy from fox news. "O YOU BETTER BE BEHIND THE PRESIDENT OR YOU'RE A DISGRACE TO THIS COUNTRY AND YOU'RE A TERRORIST!"

Well you know what, until you can explain how a 757 makes a 16 foot hole in the pentagon without damaging ANY OTHER PARTS OF THE WALL and without leaving any wreckage, then u can quiet urself =) I think a 6 ton engine going 400 MPH will leave a mark on the pentagon wall, wouldn't you agree? but obviously not because the only damage was a 16 foot diameter hole with no wreckage in front of the pentagon. No before you call me stupid, EXPLAIN THAT! Explain out the planes that hit the towers made a HUGE 100 foot across hole, meanwhile the plain that hit the pentagon made a 16 foot hole with NO damage to any other parts of the wall (where the wings/engines would have hit), and without leaving any wreckage in front of the pentagon. I'm sorry, but that question deserves serious scrutiny. So don't just say I'm stupid until you answer my question.

You sound like the guy from fox news if you say "Asking questions is unpatriotic"

This post has been edited by Too Exclusive: 06/24/05 6:33pm

[Maddcapp]

Look!!!!!!!

The black helicopters are coming!!!!! The black helicopters are coming!!!!!

[Too Exclusive]

yes i do see a lot of black helicopters, mostly at night, because i live near an airforce base. Now madcapp, notice how you didn't bother to answer my crucial question... u just made fun of me instead

[Silver]

welcome back bud...


REINFORCEMENT......


before i explain anything i want you to answer 3 things....

1...what is the offical gov reason for the pentagon?

2.... why the pentagon would not be reinforced?

3...the difference in the structural integrity between the WTC and pentagon?

and i will answer you...

(BTW look at the thickness of the wall in the photos of the crash and tell me what else you think will penetrate that?)
come back soon

retard

[Too Exclusive]

official gov story for pentagon: terrorists flew the plain at 400 mph inches above the ground and crashed it into the pentagon

i dont understand ur other questions... now answer my questions... how does a 757 make a 16 foot whole without damaging any other part of the pentagon, and leave no wreckage on the front lawn?

the pic below is the damage done by the "757" to the pentagon BEFORE the section collapsed. explain. NOW.

[Frosty]

I don't know how much I respect this source, but it has a couple a valid points (such as the fact that planes are relatively hollow and fragile objects):

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

This post has been edited by Frosty: 06/24/05 9:22pm

[Maddcapp]

How about this helicopter? I think it sums up how I feel about your nonsense too exclusive