Indisputable Facts 9/11: Quite disturbing information

I have always had a problem with my arts & letters educated bothers in regards to the SCIENCE issues,
I personally know people who can quote Chaucer but can barely change a light-bulb. Come on people, this sort of thing is covered in middle-school science class. A: the speed of an object seen on video is possible to calculate given the frame rate & reference points. and also any object upon striking & penetrating another solid object MUST slow down as a function of the use of its kinetic energy. PLEASE PEOPLE
this stuff is obvious!
 
Werbung:
I have always had a problem with my arts & letters educated bothers in regards to the SCIENCE issues,
I personally know people who can quote Chaucer but can barely change a light-bulb. Come on people, this sort of thing is covered in middle-school science class. A: the speed of an object seen on video is possible to calculate given the frame rate & reference points. and also any object upon striking & penetrating another solid object MUST slow down as a function of the use of its kinetic energy. PLEASE PEOPLE
this stuff is obvious!

Are you saying the plane did not crash through the building?
 
I have always had a problem with my arts & letters educated bothers in regards to the SCIENCE issues,
I personally know people who can quote Chaucer but can barely change a light-bulb. Come on people, this sort of thing is covered in middle-school science class. A: the speed of an object seen on video is possible to calculate given the frame rate & reference points. and also any object upon striking & penetrating another solid object MUST slow down as a function of the use of its kinetic energy. PLEASE PEOPLE
this stuff is obvious!

Did it ever occur to you, that others--hundreds of millions of them--do not agree with your hysterical conclusions?
You are more than welcome to them, but I would not hold my breath waiting for sycophants.

Unless, of course, you choose to mingle in an "Occupy Wall Street" blitzkreig.
 
Are you saying the plane did not crash through the building?


he's saying, well suggesting, that if the plane loses zero speed passing through the skin of WTC that this is somehow proof of it's being fake or whatever conspiracy nonsense he's selling. mainly he's demonstrating little understanding of whats hitting what.

short response: a dart loses a bit of speed going through a balloon but not perceptible to a 30 frames a second camera. the skin of WTC was nothing like the walls of the Pentagon and offered comparatively little resistance to the plane.
 
What about all the thousands of people on the streets and in other buildings that saw the planes crashing and exploding into the buildings?
 
so equating the wall of a steel framed skyscraper to a balloon is considered a valid argument.
With this sort of crap going on the alleged sentient beings that currently inhabit the U.S.A.
will be getting what they deserve. Thank U and GOOD NIGHT
 
so equating the wall of a steel framed skyscraper to a balloon is considered a valid argument.
With this sort of crap going on the alleged sentient beings that currently inhabit the U.S.A.
will be getting what they deserve. Thank U and GOOD NIGHT

You still didn't answer my question. Do you think that the planes DIDN'T go into the building?

And, the last time I looked, this was a political board, not a scientific one.
 
so equating the wall of a steel framed skyscraper to a balloon is considered a valid argument.
With this sort of crap going on the alleged sentient beings that currently inhabit the U.S.A.
will be getting what they deserve. Thank U and GOOD NIGHT

 
Werbung:
Back
Top