View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

United States of America v. Sir Isaac Newton (1/4)

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

United States of America v. Sir Isaac Newton (1/4)

Postby accidentsinspace » 31 Oct 2009, 02:43

"9/11 was a kind of magic show, a false flag terrorist event, a hoax."
Dr Morgan Reynolds.


1
2
3
4
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31






Re: United States of America v. Sir Isaac Newton (1/4)

Postby Nostradamus » 31 Oct 2009, 03:03

Want to add a summary of what this is all about?
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: United States of America v. Sir Isaac Newton (1/4)

Postby Nostradamus » 31 Oct 2009, 08:43

Thanks for providing a number of videos showing that the CTs have no understanding of classical physics.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: United States of America v. Sir Isaac Newton (1/4)

Postby Nostradamus » 01 Nov 2009, 21:35

Another set of videos illustrating nonsense. Anyone including the poster want to defend any of lies posted in these rubbish videos?
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: United States of America v. Sir Isaac Newton (1/4)

Postby SeanRMR » 02 Nov 2009, 15:13

I'm sorry I could't sit through there nonsense after them going through the three laws and displaying they new nothing.
SeanRMR
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 11:08

Re: United States of America v. Sir Isaac Newton (1/4)

Postby accidentsinspace » 02 Nov 2009, 15:57

How do you know if you didnt sit through them?

Would you and Nostradamus care to attempt to debunk them?
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: United States of America v. Sir Isaac Newton (1/4)

Postby Nostradamus » 03 Nov 2009, 11:17

Alright AIS you posted the videos. You have to defend the claims. Begin by picking your favorite lie and we'll debunk it.

Pick whatever lie you like best. Try to pick the one lie you think is the hardest to destroy. Go ahead make our day.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: United States of America v. Sir Isaac Newton (1/4)

Postby Nostradamus » 03 Nov 2009, 22:45

Pick a lie, any lie and dish it up for dismemberment.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: United States of America v. Sir Isaac Newton (1/4)

Postby NinjaPuppy » 03 Nov 2009, 22:51

Why don't you pick one for us ND?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: United States of America v. Sir Isaac Newton (1/4)

Postby Nostradamus » 04 Nov 2009, 00:36

My thinking exactly. I'll look over the material and pick something.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: United States of America v. Sir Isaac Newton (1/4)

Postby Nostradamus » 04 Nov 2009, 01:19

I'll start with stupid video 1.

A synposis.
1. An early claim in the video is that the building does not react.
2. A later claim is that the building has no hole in it until after the explosion.
3. Later there are videos showing crashes of cars then crash landings of planes.
4. Then there is the crumple claim.
5. Then is the claim that the building is sturdier than the material of the plane.

Well the video does not discuss claim 1. But we can. Watch the plane hit the building. The material in line with the jet is ejected at a speed slower than the jet was traveling. Using F=ma and assuming that all of the material passed though the building it is possible to determine a lower limit as to how much of the energy of the plane was transferred to the building. Since only some of the plane was ejected from the building, then we know that more of the impact energy was transferred to the building.

Claim 2 has little to do with physics. It has everything to with crashes. They point out in the video that the building has exterior columns. Part of the plane does not enter the building. As the plane enters the building this debris is seen bouncing off of the steel and obscuring the external surface of the building. Although this 'splash back' is small compared to the debris exiting the building. This forms the larger hole in the building. Exactly what is expected from Newton's Laws.

Somewhere around the time of the crash videos there is a computer model of a plane. We can see the plane vibrating. It's a typical analysis of the response of the plane. Notice that the plane is not rigid. The planes can have some portions moving up and other parts down. A plane is not a rigid body, but a flexible body. The goal of the analysis is to determine what conditions can cause the plane to exceed its structural integrity. One the plane exceeds the limits it no reacts as shown in the computer model. The plane breaks into pieces as shown so many times in the video.

So in claim 4 we know that the plane does not act as a rigid body as this video has shown us. Later on the crash landing and especially the water crash and B-52 crash show us that the planes pieces quickly separate and move independently. The crumple claim is shown in the video to be nonsense. Watch the military plane crash. You cannot see much of the plane impacting the ground because the impact zone is very quickly obscured by the earlier impacting materials. The same happens on the WTC.

The sturdier claim is nonsense. Pumpkins can be shot through cars. Straws can be shot into trees by tornadoes. A lead bullet goes through steel cars. Water is used as a cutting tool. If you want to learn you can look here: http://www.flowcorp.com/waterjet-products.cfm?id=852 Learn how water can cut metal, ceramics, plastics, and composite materials.

Clearly much of the debunking of the video is contained in the video. The problem is the poor understanding of the events by the commentators. It is also readily apparent that the knuckle heads that put this video together think that it is cute to include conversations in which they ambush someone who is unprepared to discuss the issues. All this does is demonstrate that the intent of the videos is to misinform people. I didn't get that right. The intent is to be liars.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: United States of America v. Sir Isaac Newton (1/4)

Postby NinjaPuppy » 04 Nov 2009, 01:40

[clapping wildly] Most excellent! Thank you.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: United States of America v. Sir Isaac Newton (1/4)

Postby Nostradamus » 04 Nov 2009, 05:29

let me add a little to claim 1 that the building did not react: (bolding is mine)

My name is Jeff Benjamin and I was visiting a client, Axcelera Specialty Risk, on the 83rd floor of the North Tower when we observed an approaching aircraft (American Airlines Flt.11)from a distance of aprox. 3-4 miles. At the time we initially spotted the plane, it appeared to be level with us. We could distinctly identify the American airlines insignia and my client commented that perhaps the plane had taken off from Kennedy and was experiencing mechanical problems. As the plane approached us it seemed to climb. I stood up from the conference table and walked over to the window assuming as everyone did that there was no imminent danger. As the plane came closer we could see that it was traveling at a high rate of speed and the sound of the engines intensified. Immediately before impact we could see images in the cockpit and the plane banked sharply. A split second later we heard an echoing shot, fell to the floor and observed a fireball followed by debris which struck the side of the building. At the same time you could feel the building sway every so slightly for a brief moment. We immediately retreated towards the main part of the office where we noticed a huge fireball shooting out of the elevator shaft which quickly disappeared.


So the building did react to the impact.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08


Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests