Research Discussion: Why 'Debunkers' Help The 911 Truth Movement

Why 'Debunkers' Help The 911 Truth Movement
Posts: 8

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2012-07-13 10:05:13 EST
Why 'Debunkers' Help The 911 Truth Movement

Two kinds of 9-11 truth deniers (debunkers) exist today: Those who
deny our government has the expertise to carry out the 9-11 attack,
and those who deny our government is diabolical enough to do it. Both
are sadly mistaken. If you present them with the many suspicious
anomalies of 9-11, they demand your proof. If you present them with
proof, they deny it with scarcely a glance. If you mention the
scientific laws that were broken on 9-11, they claim you are no
authority. If you quote an authority, they claim he is no expert in
that particular field. All truths passes through three stages, said
the philosopher Schopenauer. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is
violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Debunkers, those people who adamantly deny government involvement in
the 9-11 conspiracy, who adamantly deny such a conspiracy could even
occur, are stuck in the first and second stages.

At first it may seem we are battling an insurgency here. The
debunkers are strong, well-organized and well-funded. They are smart.
They have strength and numbers; cunning and clever intelligence. They
use persuasive power and intimidation, propaganda and a network of
allies. Their strongest attribute is their sincere belief that to
"debunk" your every argument--no matter how sound--is the purest form
of patriotism. Indeed, Saul of Tarsus believed he was a pure,
patriotic warrior for God, persecuting the early Christian believers.
That is, until he reportedly got knocked off his horse and changed his
name to Paul and became a believer himself. The saddest part of our
struggle with this insurgency is that many of these debunkers appear
to be honest but misguided patriots. They range from diehard
conservatives, believers in the US government's version of 9-11
events, to the so-called, "Left Gatekeepers," the strident liberal
critics of an increasingly dictatorial state who nonetheless believe
every key component of the 9-11 attack as told to them by their
government. The exact same government they loudly criticize for lying
to them in every other facet.

Debunkers, not content in their core beliefs, slam those of us who
question any facet of 9-11. They deride us as conspiracy nuts and
loonies. Or worse, desecraters and traitors. We in the 9-11 Truth
Movement are battling a desperate insurgency. Desperation is the key
word; time is not on their side. They recognize the rising danger of a
well-informed American citizenry. From Leftists Alexander Cockburn and
Noam Chomsky to Neocon apologists and 9-11 debunkers Tucker Carlson,
Hannity & Colmes and Condi Rice, they have shouldered the government's
propaganda burden to suppress the rising tide of information and
clarion calls that clamor for a true investigation of 9-11 events.
Recently a new columnist at Counterpunch.com attempted to debunk and
defuse the many 9-11 inconsistencies in a feature, In Defense of
Conspiracy: 9/11, in Theory and in Fact. Diana Johnstone wrote, "Who
profits from the crime?"---but without really acknowledging any of
those rich and powerful people who profitted immensely. I emailed her
and she responded about a week later.

"Dear readers and critics, Thank you for your comments on my 9/11
piece...Please understand that I have been snowed under by responses
-- over 50,000 words, plus attachments and web site references, still
coming." Ouch. The surging tidal wave of the 9-11 truth movement had
engulfed another debunker.

But just why are debunkers good for the 9-11 truth movement? Because
they serve a great purpose. And as mentioned, many of them are true
patriots, good, conscientious citizens. They want what we want. Good
honest government.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of so-called debunkers is that they prod,
goad, ridicule and agitate. They challenge us--and who doesn't like a
good challenge?---to get our 9-11 facts straight. Prodding us to dig
deeper and sift the truth from the fiction. Goading us to devise more
convincing arguments. Ridiculing us for embracing whatever rumor we
may have heard as scientific fact. Agitating us to such a degree we
stubbornly redouble our efforts. I have one such agitator. His name is
Jan Burton. I had considered spamming Jan but what he writes refreshes
me, challenges me. And much of what he writes has a great deal of hard
truth based on facts. Jan is no troll, intent on simple provocation.
He dares me to call those involved. He prods me. He agitates and
exasperates me. If every one of us in the so-called Truth Movement did
as much prodding and goading of our local newspaper editor, US
Representative or local structural engineer, would we or would we not
eventually wear them down?

As Paul wore down his critics. I believe--and I may be wrong--that
behind most 9-11 deniers, most debunkers are good and decent people.
Should half of them ever became convinced 9-11 was an inside job, they
would become as forceful as Paul. A more powerful force for change
than most of us have been.

Footnote: In my last column, "OKC & WTC: The Case For Controlled
Demolition," I noted the many suspicious fires that ignited in WTC-7
(but did not ignite in the other two buildings alongside WTC-7). The
FEMA report at www.WTC7.net is an interesting read. The report
emphasizes the fires on floors 11-13, the Security & Exchange offices.
Directly beneath the SEC were two floors of Secret Service offices
(also on fire). FEMA deduces: "It is likely that fires started as a
result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1." Yet no fires were
reported below the seventh floor and NIST reported no debris had
struck the roof. To conclude that the fires may have been purposely
set--ARSON-- does not appear to dawn on these government detectives.
NIST also notes that one of the first fires reported occurred---where
else---at mayor Giuliani's command post on the 23rd floor, the OEM,
Office of Emergency Management. I suspect certain operatives were
torching the building--as any GOOD detective or insurance investigator
would have concluded.
http://www.rense.com/general73/whyd.htm

Sir Gilligan Horry
2012-07-13 12:59:45 EST
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 07:05:13 -0700 (PDT), "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <science@zzz.com> wrote:

>Why 'Debunkers'

it's funny how hello Debunkers is always accompanied with goodbye
Debunkers

it's funny how good Debunkers memories can start to make you cry

it's funny how forever Debunkers never seems to last

it's funny how much you'd lose Debunkers if you forgot about your past
Debunkers

it's funny how 'Debunkers friends' can just leave when you are down

it's funny how when you need Debunkers they never are around

it's funny how people change Debunkers and think they're so much
better

it's funny how many lies are packed into one Debunkers 'love letter'

it's funny how one word Debunkers can contain so much regret

it's funny how you can forgive Debunkers but not forget

it's funny how ironic Debunkers life turns out to be

but the funniest part of all Debunkers, is none of thats funny to me

It's funny that you Debunkers lie to me

It's funny that you Debunkers want to change who I will be


It's funny that Debunkers & I go along with it

Even though Debunkers makes me feel weird

It's funny Debunkers how you're perfect

and how I thought you Debunkers were worth it

it's funny Debunkers how it's always your way

It's funny Debunkers that I never get a say

and it's really funny Debunkers that I called you friend

But where were you Debunkers at the end?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/fukushima_radiation_nuclear_fallout_map.jpg

http://www.crazywebsite.com/Free-Galleries-01/Odd-Alien-Pictures/Bizarre-Alien-Creature-Pictures-LG/Amazing-Extraterrestrials-Nuclear-Plante-Devourer-LG.jpg




_________________________________________________________________________


___


Alt Alien Research Intelligence Agency Official Admiral Wizzard.
(i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/Alien_UFO_Research_Intelligence_Agency.jpg)
... here... http://bit.ly/gsYSvc

Best Aliens UFOs Videos Proof Evidence...
http://BestAliensUFOsVideos.blogspot.com

Aliens UFOs Extraterrestrials Videos Documentaries...
http://YouTube.com/JimsSpaceAgency

For Those Who Want To Know...
http://www.WantToKnow.info

Documentary "WATER" ... by Saida Medvedeva.
Beautiful Documentary ...
http://www.voiceentertainment.net/movies/watermovie.html

"Project Mothership" UFOs Aliens Proof Evidence...
http://ProjectMotherShip.medianewsonline.com
http://BestUFOVideosOnYouTube.site11.com
http://ProjectMotherShip.webng.com
http://Vimeo.com/channels/AliensUFOsVideosProof

___

Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2012-07-13 13:10:39 EST
On Jul 13, 9:59 am, Sir Gilligan Horry <G...@ga7rm5er.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 07:05:13 -0700 (PDT), "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
>
> Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
> >Why 'Debunkers'
>
> it's funny .....

No it isn't, quit using up bandwidth or ELSE the Octagon® may have to
send you into deep deep space FOREVER. Please surrender your entire
CULT.

Why 'Debunkers' Help The 911 Truth Movement

Two kinds of 9-11 truth deniers (debunkers) exist today: Those who
deny our government has the expertise to carry out the 9-11 attack,
and those who deny our government is diabolical enough to do it. Both
are sadly mistaken. If you present them with the many suspicious
anomalies of 9-11, they demand your proof. If you present them with
proof, they deny it with scarcely a glance. If you mention the
scientific laws that were broken on 9-11, they claim you are no
authority. If you quote an authority, they claim he is no expert in
that particular field. All truths passes through three stages, said
the philosopher Schopenauer. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is
violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Debunkers, those people who adamantly deny government involvement in
the 9-11 conspiracy, who adamantly deny such a conspiracy could even
occur, are stuck in the first and second stages.

At first it may seem we are battling an insurgency here. The
debunkers are strong, well-organized and well-funded. They are smart.
They have strength and numbers; cunning and clever intelligence. They
use persuasive power and intimidation, propaganda and a network of
allies. Their strongest attribute is their sincere belief that to
"debunk" your every argument--no matter how sound--is the purest form
of patriotism. Indeed, Saul of Tarsus believed he was a pure,
patriotic warrior for God, persecuting the early Christian believers.
That is, until he reportedly got knocked off his horse and changed his
name to Paul and became a believer himself. The saddest part of our
struggle with this insurgency is that many of these debunkers appear
to be honest but misguided patriots. They range from diehard
conservatives, believers in the US government's version of 9-11
events, to the so-called, "Left Gatekeepers," the strident liberal
critics of an increasingly dictatorial state who nonetheless believe
every key component of the 9-11 attack as told to them by their
government. The exact same government they loudly criticize for lying
to them in every other facet.

Debunkers, not content in their core beliefs, slam those of us who
question any facet of 9-11. They deride us as conspiracy nuts and
loonies. Or worse, desecraters and traitors. We in the 9-11 Truth
Movement are battling a desperate insurgency. Desperation is the key
word; time is not on their side. They recognize the rising danger of a
well-informed American citizenry. From Leftists Alexander Cockburn and
Noam Chomsky to Neocon apologists and 9-11 debunkers Tucker Carlson,
Hannity & Colmes and Condi Rice, they have shouldered the government's
propaganda burden to suppress the rising tide of information and
clarion calls that clamor for a true investigation of 9-11 events.
Recently a new columnist at Counterpunch.com attempted to debunk and
defuse the many 9-11 inconsistencies in a feature, In Defense of
Conspiracy: 9/11, in Theory and in Fact. Diana Johnstone wrote, "Who
profits from the crime?"---but without really acknowledging any of
those rich and powerful people who profitted immensely. I emailed her
and she responded about a week later.

"Dear readers and critics, Thank you for your comments on my 9/11
piece...Please understand that I have been snowed under by responses
-- over 50,000 words, plus attachments and web site references, still
coming." Ouch. The surging tidal wave of the 9-11 truth movement had
engulfed another debunker.

But just why are debunkers good for the 9-11 truth movement? Because
they serve a great purpose. And as mentioned, many of them are true
patriots, good, conscientious citizens. They want what we want. Good
honest government.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of so-called debunkers is that they prod,
goad, ridicule and agitate. They challenge us--and who doesn't like a
good challenge?---to get our 9-11 facts straight. Prodding us to dig
deeper and sift the truth from the fiction. Goading us to devise more
convincing arguments. Ridiculing us for embracing whatever rumor we
may have heard as scientific fact. Agitating us to such a degree we
stubbornly redouble our efforts. I have one such agitator. His name is
Jan Burton. I had considered spamming Jan but what he writes refreshes
me, challenges me. And much of what he writes has a great deal of hard
truth based on facts. Jan is no troll, intent on simple provocation.
He dares me to call those involved. He prods me. He agitates and
exasperates me. If every one of us in the so-called Truth Movement did
as much prodding and goading of our local newspaper editor, US
Representative or local structural engineer, would we or would we not
eventually wear them down?

As Paul wore down his critics. I believe--and I may be wrong--that
behind most 9-11 deniers, most debunkers are good and decent people.
Should half of them ever became convinced 9-11 was an inside job, they
would become as forceful as Paul. A more powerful force for change
than most of us have been.

Footnote: In my last column, "OKC & WTC: The Case For Controlled
Demolition," I noted the many suspicious fires that ignited in WTC-7
(but did not ignite in the other two buildings alongside WTC-7). The
FEMA report at www.WTC7.net is an interesting read. The report
emphasizes the fires on floors 11-13, the Security & Exchange offices.
Directly beneath the SEC were two floors of Secret Service offices
(also on fire). FEMA deduces: "It is likely that fires started as a
result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1." Yet no fires were
reported below the seventh floor and NIST reported no debris had
struck the roof. To conclude that the fires may have been purposely
set--ARSON-- does not appear to dawn on these government detectives.
NIST also notes that one of the first fires reported occurred---where
else---at mayor Giuliani's command post on the 23rd floor, the OEM,
Office of Emergency Management. I suspect certain operatives were
torching the building--as any GOOD detective or insurance investigator
would have concluded.
http://www.rense.com/general73/whyd.htm

Freedom Man
2012-07-13 13:15:53 EST
The 9/11 "ATTACK" - TEN YEARS, NO JUSTICE!

The crime of the century that mass-murdered 3000 innocent Americans on
September 11, 2001 remains unsolved. Many know this with certainty and some
suspect it, but some Americans still believe the coverup lies and propaganda
fed them through the government-manipulated corporate mass-media. To
understand why, and know the truth, read on - -

To understand the point I wish to make, let's assume that an obviously alien
creature was walking peacefully down the street, and observe peoples'
reactions to it.

Some would simply not see it! Their brains would reject as IMPOSSIBLE what
their eyes tell them, and block out their awareness of the unearthly
creature.

Some might stare, perhaps be shocked or frightened, but then go on,
rationalizing that they only saw someone in costume, or that they had
indulged too heavily at last night's party and were seeing things. They
would tell no one what they saw for fear of being thought crazy. They would
even, in defense of their own rationalization, label other people that
reported such a sighting as crazy. This is the psychological phenomenon of
DENIAL.

Perhaps in fear for their own sanity, deniers condemn as crazy others that
claim aliens or whatever to be real. Such assertions are frightening because
they violate their sense of reality - "only KOOKS believe in aliens!" Thus
people tend to reject as unreal what is not comfortable for them to accept,
and likewise embrace beliefs that do not hold up to scientific scrutiny but
do provide them comfort. You don't believe what you DON'T WANT to believe;
denial thus serves to protect the mind from what would be mentally traumatic
if accepted.

Some things are simply too horrific, too abominably appalling, too greatly
in violation of what we WANT to think or believe, to accept as actual
reality - even when they ARE real! "Look; the Emperor wears no clothes,"
said the child too na\ufffdve to know that such facts are not to be spoken of,
nor even acknowledged to oneself.

PSYOPS - definition paraphrased from Wikipedia: Psychological Operations.
Techniques used to influence a target audience's value systems, beliefs,
emotions, motives, reasoning, or behavior. PSYOPS are used to induce
confessions or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the
originator's objectives, and are sometimes combined with black operations or
false flag tactics. The phrase is commonly used by governments who wish to
avoid the terms propaganda and brainwashing in reference to their own work
because those terms have negative connotations. The use of such euphemisms
for what is in effect mind control is in itself an example of psychological
operations, i.e. using psychological techniques to persuade a large number
of people to support something they wouldn't normally support or to
unquestioningly accept lies.

Obviously, to permit or commit an atrocity on the scale of the 9/11 attacks,
and/or to exploit the horror, shock, and fear thus created to influence
public opinion and actions, is clearly a PSYOP. The exploitation of the
psychological phenomenon of DENIAL is also clearly a PSYOP. Who would want
to believe that traitors in our own government would permit, or even
perpetrate, such an atrocity on their own people? How much easier it would
be to accept the existence of aliens - or fanatical Jihadists!

"But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy
and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they
are being attacked and then denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -
Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials.

Now that we understand what PSYOPS are, and the psychological phenomenon of
DENIAL, we are in a better position to rationally investigate the true
nature and possible sources of the 9/11 attacks.

The UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of an INSIDE JOB:

BLOWN TO BITS:

The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse of
steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes, is the
SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small fires and
superficial debris damage could not account for this collapse, which had all
the earmarks of controlled demolition by explosives. Videos clearly show
this. Such demolitions take many days or weeks to set up - not the few hours
between the plane "attacks" and the collapse. The explosives therefore had
to be put in place BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of
previously placed explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like
the badly damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have
remained standing.

Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological denial
still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it obviously was, and
they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and fabrications, elaborate
lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to defend their indefensible
position. The REAL terrorists are desperate to cover up their mass-murderous
crime of the century - the permitting if not perpetration of, and subsequent
political and economic exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster.
Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's most
sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible morning? I don't
think so!

There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable than the
explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing down of NORAD.
Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on the roofs of nearby
buildings. These were too far away to be from jumpers from the towers. If
the towers simply collapsed from damage and fire alone, what blew these
bodies to smithereens and sent the fragments flying for considerable
distances? The plane impacts did not have the explosive brisance (shattering
force) necessary to do this - only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny
bits and throw them such distances.

So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than their
being the result of high explosives being detonated in the towers?


The NORAD STAND-DOWN (complete failure to take defensive action) is
compelling evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy. NORAD is the world's most
sophisticated aerospace defense system, with backups and redundancies that
make it extremely reliable and effective. NORAD routinely intercepts off
course or out of communication aircraft of all kinds, especially near such
security-sensitive areas as New York City and the Pentagon. On 9/11, FOUR
allegedly hijacked subsonic-speed commercial jets were out of communication
and flying towards known terrorist targets for well over an hour. NOT ONE of
these planes was intercepted by NORAD! We were told that NORAD only looks
for aircraft coming from outside the USA, but this is a blatant LIE, given
the history of NORAD's routine interceptions!


The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the
falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade
Center building collapses:

SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK

On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World TradeCenter
(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
damaged remained standing.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September11,
2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day
goes beyond the pale."

We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
that's "beyond the pale!"

Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the
emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
assertions?

The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as
a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes
and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything
else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.

According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was
quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.

There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
facts

* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steelcore
columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.

* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity
alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.

Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do,
even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple,
unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a
reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.

How Gravity Acts:

Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force ofgravity at
and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.

Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.

So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet persecond
for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier
objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.

So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at
64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
on.

Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object isfalling
at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen
16 feet.

Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found inany
high-school physics book

* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
And
* Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D =1/2 x
G x T x T)

So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds

Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet

So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

Checking Our Work:

We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work,using
conservation of energy.

We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely changes
form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energyin a
barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn gasoline
in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some heat, as an
engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to bleed off some
of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy isconverted into heat (the
brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy [molecular or atomic]
to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough to shatter or even
pulverize concrete.

In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water stored
up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whateveris
holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.

So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic energy.

The equation for potential energy is
* Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G xH)

The equation for kinetic energy is
* Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)

So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object hasa
mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)

The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32x144
= 4608

The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 seconds is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared
=1/2 x 9216 = 4608

So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy.Seeing
that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent
analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy.
Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.

One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance

The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will
a solid metal ball.

That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way inorder
for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential
energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of
32 ft/sec/sec.

In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per
second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
overcoming frictional resistance.

This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations
predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall.At
that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with theair
creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the accelerationupward,
they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity ismaintained.

Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows theperson
attached to it to float to earth unharmed.

A Quick Recap:

Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by airresistance it
falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to fall
a given distance.

Free-fall From WTC Building Heights

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an objectto
free-fall from the towers' height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)

With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time,T:

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
ground from the height of the WTC towers.

Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is justover
200 mph.

But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.

Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.

Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
ground.

Observations from 9/11:

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's
"complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
seconds. Here is the exact quote

"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
not lie about this.

But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.

This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of
times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years
despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of
the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction as air would?
Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper
floors less than would, say, a parachute?

It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than
10 seconds!

What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not
have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
physically impossible!

Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount
of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close
to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass,
eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have
done all these things at once.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE
DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?

Conclusions

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed
duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
following zany-sounding conditions must have been met

* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure
of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
gravity.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.

None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can
be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth
of 9/11.

The Bottom Line

The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.

It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that theWTC
collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.

The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to
decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
presumptions, is also flawed.

The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
made no attempt to explain it.

Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.

---------
FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB

http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation Also see:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

SO - WHO DONE IT??

Any good detective will tell you that the way to find criminals is to
investigate those that benefitted, or stood to benefit, from the crime.
Surely those that were quickly blamed for this mass-murderous crime of the
century - Bin Laden, etc., had evil intentions against America, but could
not have done it single-handedly. Just after 9/11 Iraq and Saddam Hussein
were implied as guilty in a PSYOP to justify the invasion of Iraq, when in
fact they were blameless for 9/11.

Here are some that, under the criteria of the good detective above, must be
considered suspects:

Bush, Cheney, and their fellow Republican/neo-conservatives then in power.
Then NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani.
WTC owner/leaseholder Larry Silverstein.
The theocratic nation of Israel.

DEMAND that congress reopen the investigation and bring the real
MASS-MURDERERS to justice!

NINE ELEVEN - NEVER AGAIN!



Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2012-07-13 18:26:54 EST
On Jul 13, 10:15 am, "Freedom Man" <freespe...@4eva.com> wrote:
> The 9/11 "ATTACK" - TEN YEARS, NO JUSTICE!
>
> The crime of the century that mass-murdered 3000 innocent Americans on
> September 11, 2001 remains unsolved. Many know this with certainty and some
> suspect it, but some Americans still believe the coverup lies and propaganda
> fed them through the government-manipulated corporate mass-media. To
> understand why, and know the truth, read on - -
>
> To understand the point I wish to make, let's assume that an obviously alien
> creature was walking peacefully down the street, and observe peoples'
> reactions to it.
>
> Some would simply not see it! Their brains would reject as IMPOSSIBLE what
> their eyes tell them, and block out their awareness of the unearthly
> creature.
>
> Some might stare, perhaps be shocked or frightened, but then go on,
> rationalizing that they only saw someone in costume, or that they had
> indulged too heavily at last night's party and were seeing things. They
> would tell no one what they saw for fear of being thought crazy. They would
> even, in defense of their own rationalization, label other people that
> reported such a sighting as crazy. This is the psychological phenomenon of
> DENIAL.
>
> Perhaps in fear for their own sanity, deniers condemn as crazy others that
> claim aliens or whatever to be real. Such assertions are frightening because
> they violate their sense of reality - "only KOOKS believe in aliens!" Thus
> people tend to reject as unreal what is not comfortable for them to accept,
> and likewise embrace beliefs that do not hold up to scientific scrutiny but
> do provide them comfort. You don't believe what you DON'T WANT to believe;
> denial thus serves to protect the mind from what would be mentally traumatic
> if accepted.
>
> Some things are simply too horrific, too abominably appalling, too greatly
> in violation of what we WANT to think or believe, to accept as actual
> reality - even when they ARE real! "Look; the Emperor wears no clothes,"
> said the child too naïve to know that such facts are not to be spoken of,
> nor even acknowledged to oneself.
>
> PSYOPS - definition paraphrased from Wikipedia:  Psychological Operations.
> Techniques used to influence a target audience's value systems, beliefs,
> emotions, motives, reasoning, or behavior. PSYOPS are used to induce
> confessions or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the
> originator's objectives, and are sometimes combined with black operations or
> false flag tactics. The phrase is commonly used by governments who wish to
> avoid the terms propaganda and brainwashing in reference to their own work
> because those terms have negative connotations. The use of such euphemisms
> for what is in effect mind control is in itself an example of psychological
> operations, i.e. using psychological techniques to persuade a large number
> of people to support something they wouldn't normally support or to
> unquestioningly accept lies.
>
> Obviously, to permit or commit an atrocity on the scale of the 9/11 attacks,
> and/or to exploit the horror, shock, and fear thus created to influence
> public opinion and actions, is clearly a PSYOP. The exploitation of the
> psychological phenomenon of DENIAL is also clearly a PSYOP. Who would want
> to believe that traitors in our own government would permit, or even
> perpetrate, such an atrocity on their own people? How much easier it would
> be to accept the existence of aliens - or fanatical Jihadists!
>
> "But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy
> and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
> democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
> dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
> bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they
> are being attacked and then denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
> and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -
> Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials.
>
> Now that we understand what PSYOPS are, and the psychological phenomenon of
> DENIAL, we are in a better position to rationally investigate the true
> nature and possible sources of the 9/11 attacks.
>
> The UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of an INSIDE JOB:
>
> BLOWN TO BITS:
>
> The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse of
> steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes, is the
> SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small fires and
> superficial debris damage could not account for this collapse, which had all
> the earmarks of controlled demolition by explosives. Videos clearly show
> this. Such demolitions take many days or weeks to set up - not the few hours
> between the plane "attacks" and the collapse. The explosives therefore had
> to be put in place BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of
> previously placed explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like
> the badly damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have
> remained standing.
>
> Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological denial
> still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it obviously was, and
> they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and fabrications, elaborate
> lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to defend their indefensible
> position. The REAL terrorists are desperate to cover up their mass-murderous
> crime of the century - the permitting if not perpetration of, and subsequent
> political and economic exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster.
> Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's most
> sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible morning? I don't
> think so!
>
> There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable than the
> explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing down of NORAD.
> Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on the roofs of nearby
> buildings. These were too far away to be from jumpers from the towers. If
> the towers simply collapsed from damage and fire alone, what blew these
> bodies to smithereens and sent the fragments flying for considerable
> distances? The plane impacts did not have the explosive brisance (shattering
> force) necessary to do this - only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny
> bits and throw them such distances.
>
> So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than their
> being the result of high explosives being detonated in the towers?
>
> The NORAD STAND-DOWN (complete failure to take defensive action) is
> compelling evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy. NORAD is the world's most
> sophisticated aerospace defense system, with backups and redundancies that
> make it extremely reliable and effective. NORAD routinely intercepts off
> course or out of communication aircraft of all kinds, especially near such
> security-sensitive areas as New York City and the Pentagon. On 9/11, FOUR
> allegedly hijacked subsonic-speed commercial jets were out of communication
> and flying towards known terrorist targets for well over an hour. NOT ONE of
> these planes was intercepted by NORAD!  We were told that NORAD only looks
> for aircraft coming from outside the USA, but this is a blatant LIE, given
> the history of NORAD's routine interceptions!
>
> The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the
> falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade
> Center building collapses:
>
> SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
> EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
>
> On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World TradeCenter
> (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
> the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
> the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
> straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
> touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
> minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
> damaged remained standing.
>
> In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
> former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
> "The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September11,
> 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day
> goes beyond the pale."
>
> We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
> that's "beyond the pale!"
>
> Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
> phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the
> emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
> objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
> assertions?
>
> The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
> that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as
> a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes
> and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
> heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
> significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
> repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything
> else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
>
> According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was
> quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
> tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
> repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
> sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
>
> There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
> facts
>
> * It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steelcore
> columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
>
> * The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity
> alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
>
> Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
> check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do,
> even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
> pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple,
> unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a
> reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
> such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
> American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
>
> How Gravity Acts:
>
> Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
> noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
> observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force ofgravity at
> and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
> magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
> become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
> certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
>
> Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
> ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
> same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
> fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
>
> So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
> anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
> greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
> falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
> accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet persecond
> for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier
> objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
>
> So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
> per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
> falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at
> 64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
> on.
>
> Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object isfalling
> at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
> ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen
> 16 feet.
>
> Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
> harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found inany
> high-school physics book
>
> * Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
> And
> * Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D =1/2 x
> G x T x T)
>
> So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds
>
> Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
>
> So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
> and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
>
> Checking Our Work:
>
> We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work,using
> conservation of energy.
>
> We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely changes
> form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energyin a
> barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn gasoline
> in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some heat, as an
> engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to bleed off some
> of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy isconverted into heat (the
> brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy [molecular or atomic]
> to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough to shatter or even
> pulverize concrete.
>
> In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
> concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
> potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water stored
> up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whateveris
> holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
> gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
> converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
>
> So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic energy.
>
> The equation for potential energy is
> * Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G xH)
>
> The equation for kinetic energy is
> * Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
>
> So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object hasa
> mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
> momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
>
> The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32x144
> = 4608
>
> The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 seconds is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared
> =1/2 x 9216 = 4608
>
> So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy.Seeing
> that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
> simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent
> analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy.
> Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
>
> One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance
>
> The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
> perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
> may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
> of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will
> a solid metal ball.
>
> That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
> gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way inorder
> for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential
> energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of
> 32 ft/sec/sec.
>
> In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
> falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
> energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
> its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per
> second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
> overcoming frictional resistance.
>
> This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations
> predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
> limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
> propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall.At
> that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
> increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
> incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with theair
> creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
> terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the accelerationupward,
> they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity ismaintained.
>
> Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows theperson
> attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
>
> A Quick Recap:
>
> Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
> physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
> resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
> without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by airresistance it
> falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to fall
> a given distance.
>
> Free-fall From WTC Building Heights
>
> The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
> using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an objectto
> free-fall from the towers' height.
>
> Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
>
> With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time,T:
>
> 2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
> Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
> Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
> Time = 9.2
>
> So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
> ground from the height of the WTC towers.
>
> Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
> free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is justover
> 200 mph.
>
> But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
>
> Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
> imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
> arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
> objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
> example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
> mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
>
> Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
> than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
> ground.
>
> Observations from 9/11:
>
> On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's
> "complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
> seconds. Here is the exact quote
>
> "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
> government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
> not lie about this.
>
> But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
> seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.
>
> This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
> air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
> undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of
> times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
> core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years
> despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
>
> Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of
> the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction as air would?
> Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper
> floors less than would, say, a parachute?
>
> It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
> you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
> minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than
> 10 seconds!
>
> What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not
> have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
> rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
> physically impossible!
>
> Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
> high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
> glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
> Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
> energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount
> of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
> sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close
> to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
> expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass,
> eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
> The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have
> done all these things at once.
>
> Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE
> DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
>
> Conclusions
>
> In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed
> duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
> following zany-sounding conditions must have been met
>
> * The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
> the collapse.
> * The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure
> of energy.
> * The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.
> * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
> gravity.
> * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
>
> None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can
> be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
> the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth
> of 9/11.
>
> The Bottom Line
>
> The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
> conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
> FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
> collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
> explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
>
> It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
> destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
> free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that theWTC
> collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.
>
> The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
> towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
> came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
>
> So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
> story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
> premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to
> decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
> presumptions, is also flawed.
>
> The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
> also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
> similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
> made no attempt to explain it.
>
> Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
> miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
> basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
>
> ---------
> FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB
>
> http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-t...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiationAlso see:http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646
>
> SO - WHO DONE IT??
>
> Any good detective will tell you that the way to find criminals is to
> investigate those that benefitted, or stood to benefit, from the crime.
> Surely those that were quickly blamed for this mass-murderous crime of the
> century - Bin Laden, etc., had evil intentions against America, but could
> not have done it single-handedly. Just after 9/11 Iraq and Saddam Hussein
> were implied as guilty in a PSYOP to justify the invasion of Iraq, when in
> fact they were blameless for 9/11.
>
> Here are some that, under the criteria of the good detective above, must be
> considered suspects:
>
> Bush, Cheney, and their fellow Republican/neo-conservatives then in power.
> Then NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani.
> WTC owner/leaseholder Larry Silverstein.
> The theocratic nation of Israel.
>
> DEMAND that congress reopen the investigation and bring the real
> MASS-MURDERERS to justice!
>
> NINE ELEVEN - NEVER AGAIN!

>From Ed Ward: Declassified August 1958: "Mere fact that the U. S. has
developed atomic munitions suitable for use in demolition work."
Declassified January 1967, "The fact that we are interested in and are
continuing studies on a weapon for minimizing the emerging flux of
neutrons and internal induced activity."

Declassified March 1976, "The fact of weapon laboratory interest in
Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) devices. The fact of successful
development of MRR devices."

The factual evidence indicates that our government is using and has
used
3rd or possibly 4th generation hydrogen bombs domestically and
internationally. The evidence for international usage is not quite as
strong as the domestic usage, but when domestic usage is considered,
the
international usage seems inescapable. The process of exclusion based
on
the known facts leaves only one viable option for the destruction of
the
World Trade Center (WTC) buildings - a relatively pure hydrogen bomb.

Just some of the facts are: widespread cancer in the responders,
molten
steel, melted cars, steel beams hurled hundreds of feet, aerosolized
metals, vaporized steel witnessed and video, aerosolized and
pulverized
concrete, elevated tritium levels, vanishing (vaporized) victims, only
sliver fragments of victims on roof tops, EMP - Electro Magnetic Pulse
effects on communications, hundreds of eyewitness testimony of
ancillary
explosions by heroic rescuers and victims, massive dispersal of
debris,
demolition expert states hydrogen bomb needed for this type of
demolition, audio of a massive explosion prior to collapse, video of
ancillary explosions, audio of ancillary explosions, significant
reduction in debris pile, ancillary thermate found in wreckage,
shockwave of a mini yield nuclear blast knocked people off their feet,
vaporization of 200,000 gallons of water, removal of wreckage without
investigation, only remnants of fire in one tower minutes after the
plane collision, unprecedented history of 3 skyscrapers collapsing
secondary to fire, early miscalculation stating WTC building 7
'pulled',
towers fall at demolition or free fall speed, foreknowledge of WTC 7
immediate collapse, slow-motion video evidence of plane appendage with
smoke and explosion immediately prior to impact of both planes,
unprecedented NORAD non response to variant flights, FEMA drill
scheduled for same day, military 'exercise' of exactly what was taking
place to prevent NORAD response, most of NORAD protection planes sent
far away in another 'exercise' to prevent response, prevention of
examination of wreckage by those assigned to investigate, seismic
evidence of a mini yield nuclear explosion, Cheney takes over NORAD
response command, Cheney prevents NORAD response, WTC towers designed
for 757 collision and fire, 911 used falsely for previously planned
war,
government fabrication of 'evidence' correlation for starting war,
hundreds of people found themselves trapped by locked doors and
missing
escape routes above and below the impact zone, and not all
inclusively,
but finally, Bush brands anyone noting any of these facts a terrorist.

The spectrum and percentages of cancer are massive. There are at least
4
classifications of blood-cell cancers: leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin's
and
myeloma. There are many more classifications of soft tissue cancers.
There is brain cancer. There is breast cancer. For most of these there
are subclassifications of many different types of specific cancer in
each, so far not publicly disclosed. There are huge percentages of
respiratory distress and loss of function. Multiple reports of
'irregular cycles' (miscarriages?). Most likely there will be several
more types of cancer to follow. In particular, responders should be
checked for thyroid cancer and function. There has been no noting of
birth defects which also needs to be done. There is one thing and only
one thing that can cause all these cancers and problems - RADIATION.

Sir Gilligan Horry
2012-07-14 00:02:46 EST
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:10:39 -0700 (PDT), "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <science@zzz.com> wrote:

>On Jul 13, 9:59 am, Sir Gilligan Horry <G...@ga7rm5er.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 07:05:13 -0700 (PDT), "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
>>
>> Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
>> >Why 'Debunkers'
>>
>> it's funny .....
>
>No it isn't,

OK, sorry, it was just a silly modified poem.

>quit using up bandwidth.

OK.

>or ELSE the Octagon® may have to
>send you into deep deep space FOREVER.

OK.
http://www.wallpaperhere.com/thumbnails/detail/20110623/Wonderland-n-Space.jpg

>Please surrender your entire CULT.

OK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/images/1703goodies_competition.jpg






__________________________________



___


Alt Alien Research Intelligence Agency Official Admiral Wizzard.
(i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/Alien_UFO_Research_Intelligence_Agency.jpg)
... here... http://bit.ly/gsYSvc

Best Aliens UFOs Videos Proof Evidence...
http://BestAliensUFOsVideos.blogspot.com

Aliens UFOs Extraterrestrials Videos Documentaries...
http://YouTube.com/JimsSpaceAgency

For Those Who Want To Know...
http://www.WantToKnow.info

Documentary "WATER" ... by Saida Medvedeva.
Beautiful Documentary ...
http://www.voiceentertainment.net/movies/watermovie.html

"Project Mothership" UFOs Aliens Proof Evidence...
http://ProjectMotherShip.medianewsonline.com
http://BestUFOVideosOnYouTube.site11.com
http://ProjectMotherShip.webng.com
http://Vimeo.com/channels/AliensUFOsVideosProof

___

BDK
2012-07-14 10:12:11 EST
In article <jtpl4c$10p$1@dont-email.me>, freespeech@4eva.com says...
>
> The 9/11 "ATTACK" - TEN YEARS, NO JUSTICE!
>
> The crime of the century that mass-murdered 3000 innocent Americans on
> September 11, 2001 remains unsolved. Many know this with certainty and some
> suspect it, but some Americans still believe the coverup lies and propaganda
> fed them through the government-manipulated corporate mass-media. To
> understand why, and know the truth, read on - -
>
> To understand the point I wish to make, let's assume that an obviously alien
> creature was walking peacefully down the street, and observe peoples'
> reactions to it.
>
> Some would simply not see it! Their brains would reject as IMPOSSIBLE what
> their eyes tell them, and block out their awareness of the unearthly
> creature.
>
> Some might stare, perhaps be shocked or frightened, but then go on,
> rationalizing that they only saw someone in costume, or that they had
> indulged too heavily at last night's party and were seeing things. They
> would tell no one what they saw for fear of being thought crazy. They would
> even, in defense of their own rationalization, label other people that
> reported such a sighting as crazy. This is the psychological phenomenon of
> DENIAL.
>
> Perhaps in fear for their own sanity, deniers condemn as crazy others that
> claim aliens or whatever to be real. Such assertions are frightening because
> they violate their sense of reality - "only KOOKS believe in aliens!" Thus
> people tend to reject as unreal what is not comfortable for them to accept,
> and likewise embrace beliefs that do not hold up to scientific scrutiny but
> do provide them comfort. You don't believe what you DON'T WANT to believe;
> denial thus serves to protect the mind from what would be mentally traumatic
> if accepted.
>
> Some things are simply too horrific, too abominably appalling, too greatly
> in violation of what we WANT to think or believe, to accept as actual
> reality - even when they ARE real! "Look; the Emperor wears no clothes,"
> said the child too naïve to know that such facts are not to be spoken of,
> nor even acknowledged to oneself.
>
> PSYOPS - definition paraphrased from Wikipedia: Psychological Operations.
> Techniques used to influence a target audience's value systems, beliefs,
> emotions, motives, reasoning, or behavior. PSYOPS are used to induce
> confessions or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the
> originator's objectives, and are sometimes combined with black operations or
> false flag tactics. The phrase is commonly used by governments who wish to
> avoid the terms propaganda and brainwashing in reference to their own work
> because those terms have negative connotations. The use of such euphemisms
> for what is in effect mind control is in itself an example of psychological
> operations, i.e. using psychological techniques to persuade a large number
> of people to support something they wouldn't normally support or to
> unquestioningly accept lies.
>
> Obviously, to permit or commit an atrocity on the scale of the 9/11 attacks,
> and/or to exploit the horror, shock, and fear thus created to influence
> public opinion and actions, is clearly a PSYOP. The exploitation of the
> psychological phenomenon of DENIAL is also clearly a PSYOP. Who would want
> to believe that traitors in our own government would permit, or even
> perpetrate, such an atrocity on their own people? How much easier it would
> be to accept the existence of aliens - or fanatical Jihadists!
>
> "But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy
> and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
> democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
> dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
> bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they
> are being attacked and then denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
> and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -
> Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials.
>
> Now that we understand what PSYOPS are, and the psychological phenomenon of
> DENIAL, we are in a better position to rationally investigate the true
> nature and possible sources of the 9/11 attacks.
>
> The UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of an INSIDE JOB:
>
> BLOWN TO BITS:
>
> The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse of
> steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes, is the
> SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small fires and
> superficial debris damage could not account for this collapse, which had all
> the earmarks of controlled demolition by explosives. Videos clearly show
> this. Such demolitions take many days or weeks to set up - not the few hours
> between the plane "attacks" and the collapse. The explosives therefore had
> to be put in place BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of
> previously placed explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like
> the badly damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have
> remained standing.
>
> Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological denial
> still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it obviously was, and
> they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and fabrications, elaborate
> lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to defend their indefensible
> position. The REAL terrorists are desperate to cover up their mass-murderous
> crime of the century - the permitting if not perpetration of, and subsequent
> political and economic exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster.
> Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's most
> sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible morning? I don't
> think so!
>
> There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable than the
> explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing down of NORAD.
> Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on the roofs of nearby
> buildings. These were too far away to be from jumpers from the towers. If
> the towers simply collapsed from damage and fire alone, what blew these
> bodies to smithereens and sent the fragments flying for considerable
> distances? The plane impacts did not have the explosive brisance (shattering
> force) necessary to do this - only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny
> bits and throw them such distances.
>
> So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than their
> being the result of high explosives being detonated in the towers?
>
>
> The NORAD STAND-DOWN (complete failure to take defensive action) is
> compelling evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy. NORAD is the world's most
> sophisticated aerospace defense system, with backups and redundancies that
> make it extremely reliable and effective. NORAD routinely intercepts off
> course or out of communication aircraft of all kinds, especially near such
> security-sensitive areas as New York City and the Pentagon. On 9/11, FOUR
> allegedly hijacked subsonic-speed commercial jets were out of communication
> and flying towards known terrorist targets for well over an hour. NOT ONE of
> these planes was intercepted by NORAD! We were told that NORAD only looks
> for aircraft coming from outside the USA, but this is a blatant LIE, given
> the history of NORAD's routine interceptions!
>
>
> The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the
> falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade
> Center building collapses:
>
> SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
> EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
>
> On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World TradeCenter
> (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
> the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
> the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
> straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
> touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
> minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
> damaged remained standing.
>
> In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
> former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
> "The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September11,
> 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day
> goes beyond the pale."
>
> We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
> that's "beyond the pale!"
>
> Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
> phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the
> emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
> objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
> assertions?
>
> The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
> that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as
> a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes
> and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
> heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
> significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
> repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything
> else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
>
> According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was
> quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
> tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
> repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
> sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
>
> There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
> facts
>
> * It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steelcore
> columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
>
> * The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity
> alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
>
> Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
> check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do,
> even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
> pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple,
> unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a
> reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
> such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
> American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
>
> How Gravity Acts:
>
> Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
> noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
> observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force ofgravity at
> and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
> magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
> become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
> certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
>
> Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
> ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
> same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
> fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
>
> So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
> anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
> greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
> falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
> accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet persecond
> for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier
> objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
>
> So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
> per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
> falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at
> 64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
> on.
>
> Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object isfalling
> at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
> ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen
> 16 feet.
>
> Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
> harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found inany
> high-school physics book
>
> * Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
> And
> * Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D =1/2 x
> G x T x T)
>
> So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds
>
> Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
>
> So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
> and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
>
> Checking Our Work:
>
> We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work,using
> conservation of energy.
>
> We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely changes
> form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energyin a
> barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn gasoline
> in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some heat, as an
> engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to bleed off some
> of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy isconverted into heat (the
> brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy [molecular or atomic]
> to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough to shatter or even
> pulverize concrete.
>
> In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
> concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
> potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water stored
> up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whateveris
> holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
> gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
> converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
>
> So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic energy.
>
> The equation for potential energy is
> * Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G xH)
>
> The equation for kinetic energy is
> * Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
>
> So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object hasa
> mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
> momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
>
> The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32x144
> = 4608
>
> The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 seconds is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared
> =1/2 x 9216 = 4608
>
> So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy.Seeing
> that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
> simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent
> analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy.
> Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
>
> One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance
>
> The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
> perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
> may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
> of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will
> a solid metal ball.
>
> That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
> gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way inorder
> for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential
> energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of
> 32 ft/sec/sec.
>
> In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
> falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
> energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
> its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per
> second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
> overcoming frictional resistance.
>
> This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations
> predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
> limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
> propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall.At
> that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
> increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
> incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with theair
> creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
> terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the accelerationupward,
> they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity ismaintained.
>
> Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows theperson
> attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
>
> A Quick Recap:
>
> Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
> physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
> resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
> without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by airresistance it
> falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to fall
> a given distance.
>
> Free-fall From WTC Building Heights
>
> The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
> using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an objectto
> free-fall from the towers' height.
>
> Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
>
> With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time,T:
>
> 2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
> Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
> Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
> Time = 9.2
>
> So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
> ground from the height of the WTC towers.
>
> Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
> free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is justover
> 200 mph.
>
> But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
>
> Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
> imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
> arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
> objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
> example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
> mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
>
> Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
> than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
> ground.
>
> Observations from 9/11:
>
> On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's
> "complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
> seconds. Here is the exact quote
>
> "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
> government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
> not lie about this.
>
> But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
> seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.
>
> This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
> air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
> undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of
> times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
> core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years
> despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
>
> Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of
> the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction as air would?
> Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper
> floors less than would, say, a parachute?
>
> It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
> you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
> minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than
> 10 seconds!
>
> What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not
> have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
> rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
> physically impossible!
>
> Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
> high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
> glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
> Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
> energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount
> of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
> sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close
> to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
> expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass,
> eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
> The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have
> done all these things at once.
>
> Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE
> DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
>
> Conclusions
>
> In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed
> duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
> following zany-sounding conditions must have been met
>
> * The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
> the collapse.
> * The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure
> of energy.
> * The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.
> * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
> gravity.
> * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
>
> None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can
> be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
> the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth
> of 9/11.
>
> The Bottom Line
>
> The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
> conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
> FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
> collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
> explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
>
> It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
> destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
> free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that theWTC
> collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.
>
> The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
> towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
> came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
>
> So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
> story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
> premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to
> decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
> presumptions, is also flawed.
>
> The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
> also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
> similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
> made no attempt to explain it.
>
> Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
> miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
> basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
>
> ---------
> FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB
>
> http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation Also see:
> http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646
>
> SO - WHO DONE IT??
>
> Any good detective will tell you that the way to find criminals is to
> investigate those that benefitted, or stood to benefit, from the crime.
> Surely those that were quickly blamed for this mass-murderous crime of the
> century - Bin Laden, etc., had evil intentions against America, but could
> not have done it single-handedly. Just after 9/11 Iraq and Saddam Hussein
> were implied as guilty in a PSYOP to justify the invasion of Iraq, when in
> fact they were blameless for 9/11.
>
> Here are some that, under the criteria of the good detective above, must be
> considered suspects:
>
> Bush, Cheney, and their fellow Republican/neo-conservatives then in power.
> Then NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani.
> WTC owner/leaseholder Larry Silverstein.
> The theocratic nation of Israel.
>
> DEMAND that congress reopen the investigation and bring the real
> MASS-MURDERERS to justice!
>
> NINE ELEVEN - NEVER AGAIN!

Soon, it will be 11 years of bullshit troofer claims and still not one
speck of proof. Just more troofer kootardery.

--
BDK- Head FUD-Master Blaster.

Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2012-07-15 01:08:16 EST
On Jul 14, 7:12 am, BDK <Cont...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
> In article <jtpl4c$10...@dont-email.me>, freespe...@4eva.com says...
>
>
>
> > The 9/11 "ATTACK" - TEN YEARS, NO JUSTICE!
>
> > The crime of the century that mass-murdered 3000 innocent Americans on
> > September 11, 2001 remains unsolved. Many know this with certainty and some
> > suspect it, but some Americans still believe the coverup lies and propaganda
> > fed them through the government-manipulated corporate mass-media. To
> > understand why, and know the truth, read on - -
>
> > To understand the point I wish to make, let's assume that an obviously alien
> > creature was walking peacefully down the street, and observe peoples'
> > reactions to it.
>
> > Some would simply not see it! Their brains would reject as IMPOSSIBLE what
> > their eyes tell them, and block out their awareness of the unearthly
> > creature.
>
> > Some might stare, perhaps be shocked or frightened, but then go on,
> > rationalizing that they only saw someone in costume, or that they had
> > indulged too heavily at last night's party and were seeing things. They
> > would tell no one what they saw for fear of being thought crazy. They would
> > even, in defense of their own rationalization, label other people that
> > reported such a sighting as crazy. This is the psychological phenomenon of
> > DENIAL.
>
> > Perhaps in fear for their own sanity, deniers condemn as crazy others that
> > claim aliens or whatever to be real. Such assertions are frightening because
> > they violate their sense of reality - "only KOOKS believe in aliens!" Thus
> > people tend to reject as unreal what is not comfortable for them to accept,
> > and likewise embrace beliefs that do not hold up to scientific scrutiny but
> > do provide them comfort. You don't believe what you DON'T WANT to believe;
> > denial thus serves to protect the mind from what would be mentally traumatic
> > if accepted.
>
> > Some things are simply too horrific, too abominably appalling, too greatly
> > in violation of what we WANT to think or believe, to accept as actual
> > reality - even when they ARE real! "Look; the Emperor wears no clothes,"
> > said the child too naïve to know that such facts are not to be spoken of,
> > nor even acknowledged to oneself.
>
> > PSYOPS - definition paraphrased from Wikipedia:  Psychological Operations.
> > Techniques used to influence a target audience's value systems, beliefs,
> > emotions, motives, reasoning, or behavior. PSYOPS are used to induce
> > confessions or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the
> > originator's objectives, and are sometimes combined with black operations or
> > false flag tactics. The phrase is commonly used by governments who wish to
> > avoid the terms propaganda and brainwashing in reference to their own work
> > because those terms have negative connotations. The use of such euphemisms
> > for what is in effect mind control is in itself an example of psychological
> > operations, i.e. using psychological techniques to persuade a large number
> > of people to support something they wouldn't normally support or to
> > unquestioningly accept lies.
>
> > Obviously, to permit or commit an atrocity on the scale of the 9/11 attacks,
> > and/or to exploit the horror, shock, and fear thus created to influence
> > public opinion and actions, is clearly a PSYOP. The exploitation of the
> > psychological phenomenon of DENIAL is also clearly a PSYOP. Who would want
> > to believe that traitors in our own government would permit, or even
> > perpetrate, such an atrocity on their own people? How much easier it would
> > be to accept the existence of aliens - or fanatical Jihadists!
>
> > "But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy
> > and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
> > democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
> > dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
> > bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they
> > are being attacked and then denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
> > and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -
> > Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials.
>
> > Now that we understand what PSYOPS are, and the psychological phenomenon of
> > DENIAL, we are in a better position to rationally investigate the true
> > nature and possible sources of the 9/11 attacks.
>
> > The UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of an INSIDE JOB:
>
> > BLOWN TO BITS:
>
> > The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse of
> > steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes, is the
> > SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small fires and
> > superficial debris damage could not account for this collapse, which had all
> > the earmarks of controlled demolition by explosives. Videos clearly show
> > this. Such demolitions take many days or weeks to set up - not the few hours
> > between the plane "attacks" and the collapse. The explosives therefore had
> > to be put in place BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of
> > previously placed explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like
> > the badly damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have
> > remained standing.
>
> > Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological denial
> > still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it obviously was, and
> > they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and fabrications, elaborate
> > lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to defend their indefensible
> > position. The REAL terrorists are desperate to cover up their mass-murderous
> > crime of the century - the permitting if not perpetration of, and subsequent
> > political and economic exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster.
> > Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's most
> > sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible morning? I don't
> > think so!
>
> > There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable than the
> > explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing down of NORAD.
> > Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on the roofs of nearby
> > buildings. These were too far away to be from jumpers from the towers. If
> > the towers simply collapsed from damage and fire alone, what blew these
> > bodies to smithereens and sent the fragments flying for considerable
> > distances? The plane impacts did not have the explosive brisance (shattering
> > force) necessary to do this - only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny
> > bits and throw them such distances.
>
> > So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than their
> > being the result of high explosives being detonated in the towers?
>
> > The NORAD STAND-DOWN (complete failure to take defensive action) is
> > compelling evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy. NORAD is the world's most
> > sophisticated aerospace defense system, with backups and redundancies that
> > make it extremely reliable and effective. NORAD routinely intercepts off
> > course or out of communication aircraft of all kinds, especially near such
> > security-sensitive areas as New York City and the Pentagon. On 9/11, FOUR
> > allegedly hijacked subsonic-speed commercial jets were out of communication
> > and flying towards known terrorist targets for well over an hour. NOT ONE of
> > these planes was intercepted by NORAD!  We were told that NORAD only looks
> > for aircraft coming from outside the USA, but this is a blatant LIE, given
> > the history of NORAD's routine interceptions!
>
> > The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the
> > falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade
> > Center building collapses:
>
> > SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
> > EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
>
> > On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World TradeCenter
> > (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
> > the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
> > the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
> > straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
> > touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
> > minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
> > damaged remained standing.
>
> > In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
> > former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
> > "The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September11,
> > 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day
> > goes beyond the pale."
>
> > We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
> > that's "beyond the pale!"
>
> > Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
> > phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the
> > emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
> > objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
> > assertions?
>
> > The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
> > that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as
> > a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes
> > and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
> > heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
> > significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
> > repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything
> > else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
>
> > According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was
> > quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
> > tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
> > repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
> > sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
>
> > There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
> > facts
>
> > * It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steelcore
> > columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
>
> > * The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity
> > alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
>
> > Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
> > check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do,
> > even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
> > pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple,
> > unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a
> > reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
> > such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
> > American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
>
> > How Gravity Acts:
>
> > Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
> > noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
> > observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force ofgravity at
> > and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
> > magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
> > become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
> > certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
>
> > Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
> > ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
> > same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
> > fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
>
> > So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
> > anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
> > greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
> > falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
> > accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet persecond
> > for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier
> > objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
>
> > So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
> > per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
> > falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at
> > 64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
> > on.
>
> > Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object isfalling
> > at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
> > ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen
> > 16 feet.
>
> > Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
> > harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found inany
> > high-school physics book
>
> > * Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
> > And
> > * Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D =1/2 x
> > G x T x T)
>
> > So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds
>
> > Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
>
> > So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
> > and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
>
> > Checking Our Work:
>
> > We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work,using
> > conservation of energy.
>
> > We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely changes
> > form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energyin a
> > barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn gasoline
> > in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some heat, as an
> > engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to bleed off some
> > of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy isconverted into heat (the
> > brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy [molecular or atomic]
> > to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough to shatter or even
> > pulverize concrete.
>
> > In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
> > concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
> > potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water stored
> > up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whateveris
> > holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
> > gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
> > converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
>
> > So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic energy.
>
> > The equation for potential energy is
> > * Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G xH)
>
> > The equation for kinetic energy is
> > * Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
>
> > So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object hasa
> > mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
> > momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
>
> > The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32x144
> > = 4608
>
> > The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 seconds is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared
> > =1/2 x 9216 = 4608
>
> > So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy.Seeing
> > that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
> > simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent
> > analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy.
> > Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
>
> > One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance
>
> > The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
> > perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
> > may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
> > of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will
> > a solid metal ball.
>
> > That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
> > gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way inorder
> > for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential
> > energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of
> > 32 ft/sec/sec.
>
> > In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
> > falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
> > energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
> > its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per
> > second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
> > overcoming frictional resistance.
>
> > This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations
> > predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
> > limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
> > propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall.At
> > that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
> > increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
> > incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with theair
> > creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
> > terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the accelerationupward,
> > they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity ismaintained.
>
> > Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows theperson
> > attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
>
> > A Quick Recap:
>
> > Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
> > physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
> > resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
> > without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by airresistance it
> > falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to fall
> > a given distance.
>
> > Free-fall From WTC Building Heights
>
> > The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
> > using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an objectto
> > free-fall from the towers' height.
>
> > Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
>
> > With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time,T:
>
> > 2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
> > Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
> > Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
> > Time = 9.2
>
> > So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
> > ground from the height of the WTC towers.
>
> > Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
> > free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is justover
> > 200 mph.
>
> > But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
>
> > Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
> > imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
> > arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
> > objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
> > example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
> > mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
>
> > Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
> > than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
> > ground.
>
> > Observations from 9/11:
>
> > On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's
> > "complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
> > seconds. Here is the exact quote
>
> > "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
> > government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
> > not lie about this.
>
> > But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
> > seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.
>
> > This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
> > air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
> > undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of
> > times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
> > core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years
> > despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
>
> > Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of
> > the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction as air would?
> > Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper
> > floors less than would, say, a parachute?
>
> > It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
> > you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
> > minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than
> > 10 seconds!
>
> > What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not
> > have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
> > rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
> > physically impossible!
>
> > Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
> > high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
> > glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
> > Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
> > energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount
> > of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
> > sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close
> > to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
> > expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass,
> > eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
> > The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have
> > done all these things at once.
>
> > Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE
> > DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
>
> > Conclusions
>
> > In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed
> > duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
> > following zany-sounding conditions must have been met
>
> > * The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
> > the collapse.
> > * The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure
> > of energy.
> > * The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.
> > * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
> > gravity.
> > * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
>
> > None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can
> > be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
> > the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth
> > of 9/11.
>
> > The Bottom Line
>
> > The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
> > conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
> > FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
> > collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
> > explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
>
> > It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
> > destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
> > free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that theWTC
> > collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.
>
> > The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
> > towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
> > came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
>
> > So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
> > story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
> > premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to
> > decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
> > presumptions, is also flawed.
>
> > The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
> > also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
> > similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
> > made no attempt to explain it.
>
> > Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
> > miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
> > basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
>
> > ---------
> > FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB
>
> >http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-t...
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiationAlso see:
> >http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646
>
> > SO - WHO DONE IT??
>
> > Any good detective will tell you that the way to find criminals is to
> > investigate those that benefitted, or stood to benefit, from the crime.
> > Surely those that were quickly blamed for this mass-murderous crime of the
> > century - Bin Laden, etc., had evil intentions against America, but could
> > not have done it single-handedly. Just after 9/11 Iraq and Saddam Hussein
> > were implied as guilty in a PSYOP to justify the invasion of Iraq, when in
> > fact they were blameless for 9/11.
>
> > Here are some that, under the criteria of the good detective above, must be
> > considered suspects:
>
> > Bush, Cheney, and their fellow Republican/neo-conservatives then in power.
> > Then NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani.
> > WTC owner/leaseholder Larry Silverstein.
> > The theocratic nation of Israel.
>
> > DEMAND that congress reopen the investigation and bring the real
> > MASS-MURDERERS to justice!
>
> > NINE ELEVEN - NEVER AGAIN!
>
> Soon, it will be 11 years of bullshit troofer claims and still not one
> speck of proof. Just more troofer kootardery.
>
> --
> BDK- Head FUD-Master Blaster.

That is the worst debunking job I have ever seen. Even the mainstream
Usenet debunkers wouldn't stoop so low. Speaking about stoops or
stools, do you eat your own feces?? That's what your profile says.
If so, cut it out, it ain't good for you.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron