Video allegedly shows bin Laden with hijackers

[Logic 7]

Re: RE: Video allegedly shows bin Laden with hijackers

Why is it that evidence that supports the official and real explanation for 9/11 is immediately dismissed by the doubters.but anything flimsy,distorted,and outright false is taken to be the truth if it paints Bush in a critical light? What ever happened to analytical thought?

There is no evidence that support the official story, or tell me where they are, i would love to finallly see them.

 

[Logic 7]

Re: RE: Video allegedly shows bin Laden with hijackers

Why is it that evidence that supports the official and real explanation for 9/11 is immediately dismissed by the doubters.but anything flimsy,distorted,and outright false is taken to be the truth if it paints Bush in a critical light? What ever happened to analytical thought?

There is no such thing as analytical thought for CT's, they need someone or something to do the thinking for them. At best, the CT's cut and paste, at worst, they distort the laws of physics and perhaps more importantly common sense.

The us officials explanation violates laws of physics regarding collapse of both twin towers, otherwise you know absolutly nothing in physics.

I don't need cnn, fox, or any western leaders or media to tell me what i have to think, that is something that you will never be able to comprehend.

 

[wallyj]

You are partially right,I will never comprehend your "thinking" process. I may not have a doctorate in physics but I do have a functioning brain,which puts me way ahead of you.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Video allegedly shows bin Laden with hijackers

Why is it that evidence that supports the official and real explanation for 9/11 is immediately dismissed by the doubters.but anything flimsy,distorted,and outright false is taken to be the truth if it paints Bush in a critical light? What ever happened to analytical thought?

There is no such thing as analytical thought for CT's, they need someone or something to do the thinking for them. At best, the CT's cut and paste, at worst, they distort the laws of physics and perhaps more importantly common sense.

The us officials explanation violates laws of physics regarding collapse of both twin towers, otherwise you know absolutly nothing in physics.

I don't need cnn, fox, or any western leaders or media to tell me what i have to think, that is something that you will never be able to comprehend.

Which laws of physics are violated you blow hole? You can't think for yourself if you tried. You find a screwball on the internet that fits your perspective of the issue and automatically this lone "scientist" is correct and thousands of others are wrong.

Get your head out of your ass.

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: Video allegedly shows bin Laden with hijackers

Which laws of physics are violated you blow hole?

The towers should have fallen up! But they fell down! Therefore, Bush did it. It's all very simple, really.

 

[Kreskin]

Re: RE: Video allegedly shows bin Laden with hijackers

You are partially right,I will never comprehend your "thinking" process. I may not have a doctorate in physics but I do have a functioning brain,which puts me way ahead of you.

Your avatar is the scarecrow. Are you sure?

 

[wallyj]

I could wile away the hours;conferring with the flowers,consulting with the rain..... Yes, the picture was taken post-Dorothy.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Video allegedly shows

"Then in a few weeks, when all is forgotton, we can go back to our claims about how there's no evidence, none. zero, zilch, that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11."


You gotta admit, it is very thoughtful of him to appear just when Bush starts his political campaigns every year.

It was very thoughtful for al-Qaeda to launch the attacks in September so we can be reminded of the attacks every two years when there are elections.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Video allegedly shows bin Laden with hijackers

The us officials explanation violates laws of physics regarding collapse of both twin towers, otherwise you know absolutly nothing in physics.

Instead of picking the handle "Logic 7", you should have picked "Mr. Physics".

I don't need cnn, fox, or any western leaders or media to tell me what i have to think, that is something that you will never be able to comprehend.

We comprehend that as plain as day.

 

[wallyj]

That's it,that's it.The final piece of the puzzle has been forced into place. The attacks were in September,Elections in the fall.Yes,despite all the evidence, this nugget proves that Bush did it. Praise the lord.

 

[Kreskin]

Re: RE: Video allegedly shows bin Laden with hijackers

I could wile away the hours;conferring with the flowers,consulting with the rain..... Yes, the picture was taken post-Dorothy.

Dreaming again eh.

 

[hermanntrude]

RE: Video allegedly shows

Logic7, two things:

1) you are almost incoherent most of the time
2) you need to change your name

 

[Logic 7]

Re: RE: Video allegedly shows bin Laden with hijackers

Why is it that evidence that supports the official and real explanation for 9/11 is immediately dismissed by the doubters.but anything flimsy,distorted,and outright false is taken to be the truth if it paints Bush in a critical light? What ever happened to analytical thought?

There is no such thing as analytical thought for CT's, they need someone or something to do the thinking for them. At best, the CT's cut and paste, at worst, they distort the laws of physics and perhaps more importantly common sense.

The us officials explanation violates laws of physics regarding collapse of both twin towers, otherwise you know absolutly nothing in physics.

I don't need cnn, fox, or any western leaders or media to tell me what i have to think, that is something that you will never be able to comprehend.

Which laws of physics are violated you blow hole? You can't think for yourself if you tried. You find a screwball on the internet that fits your perspective of the issue and automatically this lone "scientist" is correct and thousands of others are wrong.

Get your head out of your ass.

I don't need anyone to tell me anything, i know what i know,for the WTC buildings to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Video allegedly shows bin Laden with hijackers

I don't need anyone to tell me anything, i know what i know,for the WTC buildings to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone.

That's because it didn't collapse in 10 seconds.

The story...

The towers fell at or near free fall speeds, a possible sign of controlled demolition.

Our take...

Stage one in establishing this claim is to calculate the actual time it took for the towers to fall, but dust clouds obscuring the end of the collapse make this difficult.
Coming up with a final figure involves a degree of estimation, which is probably why the times you’ll find online range from 8.4 to 15 seconds..

The rate of free fall in a vacuum, at least, is easier to define. The towers were around 417 metres tall (excluding the spire), giving 417 = 0.5 gt^2, so with g = 9.8m/s^2 that gives a time of about 9.22 seconds. So if you dropped a ball off the roof, and there were no air resistance, then that’s the time it would take to reach the ground.

Now we have a basis for comparison. If the towers really did fall completely in 8.4 seconds, then that would actually be faster than gravity, requiring some major additional force to push from above (or pull from below). We’ve seen it suggested that explosives created a “powerful vacuum”, for instance, but that’s not apparent from the collapse videos and images. Like this one, for instance.

Collapse

Large chunks of rubble, which are in free fall, are clearly falling faster than the rest of the building. The base of the massive chunk lower left is, what, 20 storeys lower than the top of the right-hand corner of the building? (And there may be rubble below that, and the building may be intact higher higher still). This suggests we should be looking at a collapse time greater than our 9.22 second freefall figure, not less.

How much greater? If the video evidence gives such a great ranges of guesses, then maybe another approach is required, at least as a crosscheck. We tried looking at the audio of each collapse, and came up with a minimum of 14 seconds in each case (see our South Tower and North Tower pages for more), and the potential for them to have taken several seconds longer. Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely.

We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence. Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there’s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.

And if you look carefully, then you will find some videos that also back us up. Here’s one indicating to us that the first collapse took more than 12.5 seconds.

Where people have quantified the collapse time they thought should have arisen, it’s not always helpful to the conspiracy case. D.P. Grimmer, for instance, believes the towers demonstrably fell in around 10 seconds, and has this to say about the time it should have taken in one scenario (if 30% of the gravitational energy of the collapse was lost in pulverising the concrete):

Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm

So Grimmer thinks a 12 second time might be more reasonable, in the case he describes? Yet we (and others) suggest a collapse time of 15 seconds or more is more accurate, significantly longer still.

Of course the main issue is still whether each tower fell faster than it should have done in air, not a vacuum. Read more on this in an extremely detailed and interesting paper from Dr Frank Greening, which he’s kindly agreed to let us host here. http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

And in the interests of balance, check out the “Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory”. Be sure to pay attention to their calculations of collapse time, and the way the pancaking towers are assumed to come to a dead stop as each floor is hit.

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Video allegedly shows bin Laden with hijackers

I don't need anyone to tell me anything, i know what i know,for the WTC buildings to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone.

Tell me where the government says the Towers collapsed in 10 seconds. Better yet, show me how the lower floors were collapsing ahead of the top floors, as you state.

 

[Logic 7]

Re: RE: Video allegedly shows bin Laden with hijackers

I don't need anyone to tell me anything, i know what i know,for the WTC buildings to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone.

That's because it didn't collapse in 10 seconds.

It did.


page 305 (alt+w) of the comission report says it did in 10 sec.s


you always bring this site to prove your point, but each time i prove to you they are wrong, and you still go with them, that is really funny.


Yep, no reply to this,that is really funny.
.