| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | unless witnesses were on drugs on 9/11 i suggest not discussing tv fakery period. brainwashing maybe to make us imagine planes at the other two locations and the trauma of ot all but fakery dosnt explain witnesses who where there and nowhere near a t.v. or the plane shaped holes in the buildings plus debris.
when you can explain those three points scientifically without maybes and proberblys then some might listen a little harder. its easy to concentrate on tv fakery alone but you need to explain away all the things that go against it with evidence. witnesses and plane shaped holes suggest a planes was physically there and also the plane debris found on the street, explain..... (pulls out a cotton bud gives his ear a clean, cups his hand to the side of his ear and leans towards the screen). |
Thanks to all the websites around, people are waking up to TV-Fakery everyday. Witness reports have been explained away. |
you mean thanks to all the disinfo, as its still not proven and you have just avoided enlightening me with what you seem to know that i dont.
so i take it you cannot answer my questions straight out scientifically in anyway. nice one liner that proves NOTHING! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | James C wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | James C wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | Check Your Understanding...
While driving down the road, an unfortunate bug strikes the windshield of a bus. Quite obviously, this is a case of Newton's third law of motion. The bug hit the windshield and the windshield hit the bug. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the bug or the force on the bus? |
This gets more bizarre by the day. The fact that CB_Brooklyn appreciates one aspect of Newton's 3rd law but fails to understand it's true relevance in this case is most weird.
Answer: the forces are the same.....
Problem!!.....but the bug has been splatted and the yet the windscreen remains intact.
Ugh!!!... what's going on.
Oh yes I get it now. The bug's body is small, lightweight and made of animal tissue which is relatively soft. The windscreen is large, heavy and very tough and therefore has greater momentum since momentum = mass x velocity. Despite there being equal forces, the bug made no impact on the state of the windscreen.
I guess that's similar to the behaviour of the planes which hit the twin towers. Their size, mass, huge momentum and construction made them stronger on impact than the relatively tiny steel columns and even smaller bolts holding them together. No wonder they broke through so easily.
Then again some people claim CGI was used but they can never account for the amazing plane shaped holes in each facade. What a joke!
I'd forget physics if I were you, you obviously don't understand it. To make statements like steel is stronger than aluminium is wrong unless you discuss what sizes of steel and aluminium you are referring. To make statements like Newton's 3rd law proves that the facade of the towers would resist all forces placed upon it by the planes is plainly absurd when you systematicallty ignore the relative sizes and construction methods of each - a bit like the bug analogy above. |
Momentum....
The huge momentum the "plane" had doesn't explain an aluminum plane smoothly gliding through a steel and concrete structure. It still violates Newton's Laws of Motion. Sorry! |
Which still confirms that you do not understand Newton's 3rd law. By your reasoning, nothing would ever suffer damage if it is hit by another object of equal size since each would cancel the applied force. How many high speed car crashes have you ever seen where no damage has occured?
Besides, only when the video footage is slowed right down does it appear to glide into the building. Watch the opening credits of Loose Change to see the south tower being hit. It doesn't glide in, it punches or smacks its way through very hard and with masses of energy, showering the streets below with debris and fire. |
I seriously recommend you cease TV-Fakery discussions because you are not seeing things clearly. Your "by your reasoning" comment above takes what I said completely out of context. In addition, for you to say that the "plane" didn't glide in shows that this just isn't your area. I don't wish to spend time responding to posts like the above anymore. |
What a surprise!
Is it because I talk more sense than you do and my scientific approach is no match for your waffle? I think so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | James C wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | James C wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | Check Your Understanding...
While driving down the road, an unfortunate bug strikes the windshield of a bus. Quite obviously, this is a case of Newton's third law of motion. The bug hit the windshield and the windshield hit the bug. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the bug or the force on the bus? |
This gets more bizarre by the day. The fact that CB_Brooklyn appreciates one aspect of Newton's 3rd law but fails to understand it's true relevance in this case is most weird.
Answer: the forces are the same.....
Problem!!.....but the bug has been splatted and the yet the windscreen remains intact.
Ugh!!!... what's going on.
Oh yes I get it now. The bug's body is small, lightweight and made of animal tissue which is relatively soft. The windscreen is large, heavy and very tough and therefore has greater momentum since momentum = mass x velocity. Despite there being equal forces, the bug made no impact on the state of the windscreen.
I guess that's similar to the behaviour of the planes which hit the twin towers. Their size, mass, huge momentum and construction made them stronger on impact than the relatively tiny steel columns and even smaller bolts holding them together. No wonder they broke through so easily.
Then again some people claim CGI was used but they can never account for the amazing plane shaped holes in each facade. What a joke!
I'd forget physics if I were you, you obviously don't understand it. To make statements like steel is stronger than aluminium is wrong unless you discuss what sizes of steel and aluminium you are referring. To make statements like Newton's 3rd law proves that the facade of the towers would resist all forces placed upon it by the planes is plainly absurd when you systematicallty ignore the relative sizes and construction methods of each - a bit like the bug analogy above. |
Momentum....
The huge momentum the "plane" had doesn't explain an aluminum plane smoothly gliding through a steel and concrete structure. It still violates Newton's Laws of Motion. Sorry! |
Which still confirms that you do not understand Newton's 3rd law. By your reasoning, nothing would ever suffer damage if it is hit by another object of equal size since each would cancel the applied force. How many high speed car crashes have you ever seen where no damage has occured?
Besides, only when the video footage is slowed right down does it appear to glide into the building. Watch the opening credits of Loose Change to see the south tower being hit. It doesn't glide in, it punches or smacks its way through very hard and with masses of energy, showering the streets below with debris and fire. |
I seriously recommend you cease TV-Fakery discussions because you are not seeing things clearly. Your "by your reasoning" comment above takes what I said completely out of context. In addition, for you to say that the "plane" didn't glide in shows that this just isn't your area. I don't wish to spend time responding to posts like the above anymore. |
What a surprise!
Is it because I talk more sense than you do and my scientific approach is no match for your waffle? I think so. |
I used Newton's Laws of Motion to refute you in every single case. You loose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | unless witnesses were on drugs on 9/11 i suggest not discussing tv fakery period. brainwashing maybe to make us imagine planes at the other two locations and the trauma of ot all but fakery dosnt explain witnesses who where there and nowhere near a t.v. or the plane shaped holes in the buildings plus debris.
when you can explain those three points scientifically without maybes and proberblys then some might listen a little harder. its easy to concentrate on tv fakery alone but you need to explain away all the things that go against it with evidence. witnesses and plane shaped holes suggest a planes was physically there and also the plane debris found on the street, explain..... (pulls out a cotton bud gives his ear a clean, cups his hand to the side of his ear and leans towards the screen). |
Thanks to all the websites around, people are waking up to TV-Fakery everyday. Witness reports have been explained away. |
you mean thanks to all the disinfo, as its still not proven and you have just avoided enlightening me with what you seem to know that i dont.
so i take it you cannot answer my questions straight out scientifically in anyway. nice one liner that proves NOTHING! |
I used Newton's Laws of Motion to refute you in every single case. You loose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I forget, what comes after denial?
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | I used Newton's Laws of Motion to refute you in every single case. You loose.
|
I see that your pre-school education is still causing you trouble especially your spelling; loose is not the same as lose!
Newton's 3rd law is obviously also causing you problems especially since you continue to view it in isolation. I suggest that you read up carefully on Newton's laws.
Maybe I can elighten you a little. Before impact, the facade of each tower was at rest just as described in Newton's 1st law. But when the planes hit, each facade was made to accelerate in the same direction as the aircraft in accordance with Newton's 2nd law. Despite the facades pushing back with an equal force to fulfill the 3rd law, the planes were too massive and had too much momentum for the steel joints to cope with and so each facade broke. The planes therefore passed through the outer walls and entered the towers.
By your definition, however, the planes should have simply bounced off because you ignore the 2nd law. As I said in an earlier post, perhaps you'd like to put Newton's 3rd law to the test by attempting to stop a car travelling at 60mph with nothing but your own body. I think you'll find that despite your body pushing back with equal force on impact, causing damage to the car, the greater mass and momentum of the car will ultimately push your body backward. This will all happen in a split second of course.
I await your attempt to prove me wrong. Perhaps you could film yourself being hit by a car and get your friends to post it on Youtube, (you'll be dead of course). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | unless witnesses were on drugs on 9/11 i suggest not discussing tv fakery period. brainwashing maybe to make us imagine planes at the other two locations and the trauma of ot all but fakery dosnt explain witnesses who where there and nowhere near a t.v. or the plane shaped holes in the buildings plus debris.
when you can explain those three points scientifically without maybes and proberblys then some might listen a little harder. its easy to concentrate on tv fakery alone but you need to explain away all the things that go against it with evidence. witnesses and plane shaped holes suggest a planes was physically there and also the plane debris found on the street, explain..... (pulls out a cotton bud gives his ear a clean, cups his hand to the side of his ear and leans towards the screen). |
Thanks to all the websites around, people are waking up to TV-Fakery everyday. Witness reports have been explained away. |
you mean thanks to all the disinfo, as its still not proven and you have just avoided enlightening me with what you seem to know that i dont.
so i take it you cannot answer my questions straight out scientifically in anyway. nice one liner that proves NOTHING! |
I used Newton's Laws of Motion to refute you in every single case. You loose. |
this is where the guy seems to come across as a looney i still have lots of question left unanswered, the only way i'd agree is if newtons law was to do nothing but use disinfo tactics to divide the movement. i believe some here are serious about npt and try to make a case, but you are just a joke! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | unless witnesses were on drugs on 9/11 i suggest not discussing tv fakery period. brainwashing maybe to make us imagine planes at the other two locations and the trauma of ot all but fakery dosnt explain witnesses who where there and nowhere near a t.v. or the plane shaped holes in the buildings plus debris.
when you can explain those three points scientifically without maybes and proberblys then some might listen a little harder. its easy to concentrate on tv fakery alone but you need to explain away all the things that go against it with evidence. witnesses and plane shaped holes suggest a planes was physically there and also the plane debris found on the street, explain..... (pulls out a cotton bud gives his ear a clean, cups his hand to the side of his ear and leans towards the screen). |
Thanks to all the websites around, people are waking up to TV-Fakery everyday. Witness reports have been explained away. |
you mean thanks to all the disinfo, as its still not proven and you have just avoided enlightening me with what you seem to know that i dont.
so i take it you cannot answer my questions straight out scientifically in anyway. nice one liner that proves NOTHING! |
I used Newton's Laws of Motion to refute you in every single case. You loose. |
this is where the guy seems to come across as a looney i still have lots of question left unanswered, the only way i'd agree is if newtons law was to do nothing but use disinfo tactics to divide the movement. i believe some here are serious about npt and try to make a case, but you are just a joke! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I always liked Jim Fetzer - but that interview made me not want to bother listening to him again. He ducked SJ's mike constantly and never let him complete the issue at hand.
Steve got well riled  - Never heard the man who made cookers for third world companies get *that* annoyed. He event shouted at one point 
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
