The Physics of 9-11

Sword_Of_Truth · 29th November 2006, 08:18 PM

Good article up on counterpunch.org.

Twoofers will hate it for two reasons;

Science still isn't on thier side.

It's got "maths" in it. Twoofers don't like "maths".

EDIT: Bleh, I've had the stickies hidden for so long, I forgot they were there. Reposting to the appropriate thread.

JamesB · 29th November 2006, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Good article up on counterpunch.org.

Twoofers will hate it for two reasons;

Science still isn't on thier side.

It's got "maths" in it. Twoofers don't like "maths".

EDIT: Bleh, I've had the stickies hidden for so long, I forgot they were there. Reposting to the appropriate thread.

Excellent article. Thanks for finding it. It explains things even for us liberal arts majors. I linked it at SLC.

Kent1 · 30th November 2006, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by JamesB

Excellent article. Thanks for finding it. It explains things even for us liberal arts majors. I linked it at SLC.

The other 2 articles are just as good or better
http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html (Fall of WTC 7)
http://www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html (The Thermodynamics of 9/11)

JamesB · 30th November 2006, 11:47 AM

The moonbats over at 911 bloger are going absolutely apoplectic over these articles. Counterpunch has now overtaken Popular Mechanics as the NWO propaganda machine.

http://911blogger.com/node/4728

chipmunk stew · 30th November 2006, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by JamesB

The moonbats over at 911 bloger are going absolutely apoplectic over these articles. Counterpunch has now overtaken Popular Mechanics as the NWO propaganda machine.

http://911blogger.com/node/4728

Well, one of their primary contributors is Larry Silverstein's cousin.

Originally Posted by http://www.counterpunch.org/aboutus.html

Ken Silverstein

It's true.

JamesB · 30th November 2006, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

Well, one of their primary contributors is Larry Silverstein's cousin.

It's true.

Well in the tradition of Benjamin Chertoff and Wirt Walker III, anyone with similar names must be related.

I hear Alex Jones is Steven Jones' love child.

Sword_Of_Truth · 30th November 2006, 01:35 PM

Is James Bennet the cousin/brother/bastard love child of former Reagan Education Secretary and Bush 41 "Drug Czar" William Bennet?

Your secrets out, JB. Better you fess up now than if they have to force it out of you after the revolution.

JamesB · 30th November 2006, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Is James Bennet the cousin/brother/bastard love child of former Reagan Education Secretary and Bush 41 "Drug Czar" William Bennet?

Your secrets out, JB. Better you fess up now than if they have to force it out of you after the revolution.

No, but I am the love child of the great Tony Bennett.

Fly me to the moon...

PerryLogan · 30th November 2006, 01:55 PM

"I hear Alex Jones is Steven Jones' love child."

No--Steven Jones is Alex Jones's love child. I'm almost positive.

Gravy · 30th November 2006, 01:56 PM

Good find, Sword! All three articles are excellent.

gumboot · 30th November 2006, 03:29 PM

I'm just listening to the JamesB radio talkback thingy on 9/11...

Am listening to the spokesman from a woowoo site...

One thing interesting... a primary argument seems to be "laws of physics defied".

I find this REALLY weird.

The laws of physics, by our understanding, are universal and absolute. Changing the nature of the event does not change the laws of physics.

If the collapse speed defied the laws of physics, it defied the laws of physics regardless of the mechanism that caused the collapse.

I just don't understand how people can manage this sort of "doublethink".

-Gumboot

Alt+F4 · 30th November 2006, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

One thing interesting... a primary argument seems to be "laws of physics defied".

I find this REALLY weird.

The laws of physics, by our understanding, are universal and absolute. Changing the nature of the event does not change the laws of physics.

If the collapse speed defied the laws of physics, it defied the laws of physics regardless of the mechanism that caused the collapse.

I just don't understand how people can manage this sort of "doublethink".

I doubt most of the CTers even understand high school physics. They look at the collapse of the WTC and it doesn't make sense that something like that could happen due to plane crashes. Then someone says, "it goes against the laws of physics". That's much easier to understand then all that complicated science.

Quad4_72 · 30th November 2006, 03:39 PM

Good reports indeed. They are in vain though I am afraid. The responses from the CTs will be "No way thats not true!" or "Pshhhhh! I bet that guy works for the CIA" and my personal favorite "Yeah well how did it fall so fast then!" (It was explained in the report but yet the question still gets asked.".

RecoveringYuppy · 30th November 2006, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

If the collapse speed defied the laws of physics, it defied the laws of physics regardless of the mechanism that caused the collapse. I just don't understand how people can manage this sort of "doublethink".
-Gumboot

Yeah. I get the same feeling when creationists tell me the second law of thermodynamics precludes single celled organisms from evolving in to humans without realizing that interpretation of the law would also preclude pregnancy.

29th November 2006, 08:18 PM	#1
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	The Physics of 9-11 Good article up on counterpunch.org. Twoofers will hate it for two reasons; Science still isn't on thier side. It's got "maths" in it. Twoofers don't like "maths". EDIT: Bleh, I've had the stickies hidden for so long, I forgot they were there. Reposting to the appropriate thread.
	Last edited by Sword_Of_Truth; 29th November 2006 at 08:26 PM.

29th November 2006, 08:59 PM	#2
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth Good article up on counterpunch.org. Twoofers will hate it for two reasons; Science still isn't on thier side. It's got "maths" in it. Twoofers don't like "maths". EDIT: Bleh, I've had the stickies hidden for so long, I forgot they were there. Reposting to the appropriate thread. Excellent article. Thanks for finding it. It explains things even for us liberal arts majors. I linked it at SLC.
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

30th November 2006, 10:29 AM	#3
Kent1 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,177	Originally Posted by JamesB Excellent article. Thanks for finding it. It explains things even for us liberal arts majors. I linked it at SLC. The other 2 articles are just as good or better http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html (Fall of WTC 7) http://www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html (The Thermodynamics of 9/11)
Kent1 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,177

30th November 2006, 11:47 AM	#4
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	The moonbats over at 911 bloger are going absolutely apoplectic over these articles. Counterpunch has now overtaken Popular Mechanics as the NWO propaganda machine. http://911blogger.com/node/4728
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

30th November 2006, 11:57 AM	#5
chipmunk stew The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: SE PA Posts: 7,465	Originally Posted by JamesB The moonbats over at 911 bloger are going absolutely apoplectic over these articles. Counterpunch has now overtaken Popular Mechanics as the NWO propaganda machine. http://911blogger.com/node/4728 Well, one of their primary contributors is Larry Silverstein's cousin. Originally Posted by http://www.counterpunch.org/aboutus.html Ken Silverstein It's true.
	__________________

30th November 2006, 12:24 PM	#6
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by chipmunk stew Well, one of their primary contributors is Larry Silverstein's cousin. It's true. Well in the tradition of Benjamin Chertoff and Wirt Walker III, anyone with similar names must be related. I hear Alex Jones is Steven Jones' love child.
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

30th November 2006, 01:35 PM	#7
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Is James Bennet the cousin/brother/bastard love child of former Reagan Education Secretary and Bush 41 "Drug Czar" William Bennet? Your secrets out, JB. Better you fess up now than if they have to force it out of you after the revolution.

30th November 2006, 01:45 PM	#8
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth Is James Bennet the cousin/brother/bastard love child of former Reagan Education Secretary and Bush 41 "Drug Czar" William Bennet? Your secrets out, JB. Better you fess up now than if they have to force it out of you after the revolution. No, but I am the love child of the great Tony Bennett. Fly me to the moon...
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

30th November 2006, 01:55 PM	#9
PerryLogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In the earth's deep core Posts: 980	"I hear Alex Jones is Steven Jones' love child." No--Steven Jones is Alex Jones's love child. I'm almost positive.

30th November 2006, 01:56 PM	#10
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Good find, Sword! All three articles are excellent.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

30th November 2006, 03:29 PM	#11
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,124	I'm just listening to the JamesB radio talkback thingy on 9/11... Am listening to the spokesman from a woowoo site... One thing interesting... a primary argument seems to be "laws of physics defied". I find this REALLY weird. The laws of physics, by our understanding, are universal and absolute. Changing the nature of the event does not change the laws of physics. If the collapse speed defied the laws of physics, it defied the laws of physics regardless of the mechanism that caused the collapse. I just don't understand how people can manage this sort of "doublethink". -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

30th November 2006, 03:37 PM	#12
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,780	Originally Posted by gumboot One thing interesting... a primary argument seems to be "laws of physics defied". I find this REALLY weird. The laws of physics, by our understanding, are universal and absolute. Changing the nature of the event does not change the laws of physics. If the collapse speed defied the laws of physics, it defied the laws of physics regardless of the mechanism that caused the collapse. I just don't understand how people can manage this sort of "doublethink". I doubt most of the CTers even understand high school physics. They look at the collapse of the WTC and it doesn't make sense that something like that could happen due to plane crashes. Then someone says, "it goes against the laws of physics". That's much easier to understand then all that complicated science.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

30th November 2006, 03:39 PM	#13
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Good reports indeed. They are in vain though I am afraid. The responses from the CTs will be "No way thats not true!" or "Pshhhhh! I bet that guy works for the CIA" and my personal favorite "Yeah well how did it fall so fast then!" (It was explained in the report but yet the question still gets asked.".

30th November 2006, 03:41 PM	#14
RecoveringYuppy Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,851	Originally Posted by gumboot If the collapse speed defied the laws of physics, it defied the laws of physics regardless of the mechanism that caused the collapse. I just don't understand how people can manage this sort of "doublethink". -Gumboot Yeah. I get the same feeling when creationists tell me the second law of thermodynamics precludes single celled organisms from evolving in to humans without realizing that interpretation of the law would also preclude pregnancy.