It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I used to like Penn and Teller until I saw this video
page: 9share:
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Originally posted by Insolubrious
I was pretty annoyed to say the least over Penn & Teller's bull# episode on 9/11, very disappointed. However, did you know a few years later Penn Jillette changed his view about his 9/11 beliefs?
Here's the video, enjoy.
edit on 20-7-2012 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)
Well, he doesn't really say much and he still insists 9/11 truthers are 'whackjobs' and 'full on assholes'.
It just goes to show he ran that show without even knowing what he was talking about. He took the '9/11 truthers are stupid mother#ers' and that was the line he took without considering the questions and evidence.
To now turn around and say 'I don't know' after making money from that show, IMO, makes him the asshole. May he long enjoy the money he made from that episode!
Just think about that, the show was saying it was disrespectful to the victims, yet he was making money from it making fun of legitimate questions regarding the truth of 9/11. Think about that one.
edit on 20-7-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)
Couldn't agree more. Besides there is video of him claiming he's never watched any videos of WTC #7 and doesn't know about it. To come out and say what total a*holes truthers are, to kick them down the stairs if you have the chance, to NOT know about WTC #7 and then to "change" his mind based upon some "artist" as he keeps calling him and saying, "well, I just don't know anymore" is the definition of a TURD. Screaming at people and he has no clue, admittedly about WTC7. What a total jerk and idiot this guy is.
CJ
Originally posted by Turkenstein
reply to post by Wonderer2012
Buildings don't fall at free fall speeds unless all the resistance under them are removed. This type of collapse has never-ever happened to a high rise building and will probably never happen a gain. Any one with understanding of physics knows there is some B.S. in the official story.
I have an understanding of physics. I have the paperwork to prove that. What I don't have an understanding of is why this seems to be a sticking point for one claiming to be educated in physics.
If you disagree then please, by all means, explain away the thermite evidence and the pulverisation of reinforced concrete as a building plummets at free-fall speed. Thanks in advance.
Sure - just as soon as you can explain why the presence or absence of thermite would either support or refute your "free fall" theory.
Are you sure you know how thermite works? I've seen it eat through an engine block, but I've never seen it do anything at all instantaneously.
edit on 2012/7/20 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Blatant. They should be ashamed of themselves.
just another example of one of those "successful" people "barry" was talking about just a few days ago.
edit on 21-7-2012 by
ritualmurders911 because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-7-2012 by ritualmurders911 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Monger
I used to like _____ until they _____.
...turned out to be just another bunch of corporate douchebags!
l.o.l.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Are you sure you know how thermite works? I've seen it eat through an engine block, but I've never seen it do anything at all instantaneously.
Thermite accelerates to high temperatures very quickly, that is what it's designed to do!
I've never seen a building have total failure from fires 'instantaneously' either, have you?
Happened 3 times on 9/11, quite some precedent that eh!
Originally posted by thegameisup
Originally posted by nenothtu
Are you sure you know how thermite works? I've seen it eat through an engine block, but I've never seen it do anything at all instantaneously.
Thermite accelerates to high temperatures very quickly, that is what it's designed to do!
I've never seen a building have total failure from fires 'instantaneously' either, have you?
Happened 3 times on 9/11, quite some precedent that eh!
It wasn't instantaneous. Are you high?
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by thegameisup
Originally posted by nenothtu
Are you sure you know how thermite works? I've seen it eat through an engine block, but I've never seen it do anything at all instantaneously.
Thermite accelerates to high temperatures very quickly, that is what it's designed to do!
I've never seen a building have total failure from fires 'instantaneously' either, have you?
Happened 3 times on 9/11, quite some precedent that eh!
It wasn't instantaneous. Are you high?
So, WTC7 did not have it's beams fail instantaneously? It had to otherwise it would not have fallen the way it did.
Stick to what you know, you're out of your depth with physics.
Yes I have had a nice wee smoke of Kush, but it does not effect my cognitive ability, if anything it clears my mind. You should try some, might unblock your mind a little.
Originally posted by thegameisup
So, WTC7 did not have it's beams fail instantaneously? It had to otherwise it would not have fallen the way it did.
Stick to what you know, you're out of your depth with physics.
Yes I have had a nice wee smoke of Kush, but it does not effect my cognitive ability, if anything it clears my mind. You should try some, might unblock your mind a little.
It didn't. Didn't you watch the penthouse collapse like everyone else? That's pretty conclusive stuff.
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by thegameisup
So, WTC7 did not have it's beams fail instantaneously? It had to otherwise it would not have fallen the way it did.
Stick to what you know, you're out of your depth with physics.
Yes I have had a nice wee smoke of Kush, but it does not effect my cognitive ability, if anything it clears my mind. You should try some, might unblock your mind a little.
It didn't. Didn't you watch the penthouse collapse like everyone else? That's pretty conclusive stuff.
oh yeah. "sie penthouse". that explains the free fall collapse. too bad nist didn't show the entire "animation" of the collapse they produced.
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by thegameisup
So, WTC7 did not have it's beams fail instantaneously? It had to otherwise it would not have fallen the way it did.
Stick to what you know, you're out of your depth with physics.
Yes I have had a nice wee smoke of Kush, but it does not effect my cognitive ability, if anything it clears my mind. You should try some, might unblock your mind a little.
It didn't. Didn't you watch the penthouse collapse like everyone else? That's pretty conclusive stuff.
There may have been a pat of the top that moved first, but it did not effect the whole building, it was after that initial movement that the WHOLE building failed simultaneously.
You know nothing about physics, step away before you embarrass yourself even more.
Originally posted by thegameisup
Originally posted by nenothtu
Are you sure you know how thermite works? I've seen it eat through an engine block, but I've never seen it do anything at all instantaneously.
Thermite accelerates to high temperatures very quickly, that is what it's designed to do!
I've never seen a building have total failure from fires 'instantaneously' either, have you?
Happened 3 times on 9/11, quite some precedent that eh!
From fires? No. From fires in combination with structural damage? Yes.
That still doesn't explain how thermite would result in an otherwise unexplainable "free fall". Thermite is in no way necessary, or even really helpful. There are far better ways to drop a building if you want to do so intentionally.
Originally posted by ritualmurders911
oh yeah. "sie penthouse". that explains the free fall collapse. too bad nist didn't show the entire "animation" of the collapse they produced.
The model they produced did not factor in the facade of the building. It was only meant to model the internal collapse that lead to the global collapse. They made two versions of their full 3D model. One was a collapse of a single column with no damage to the building. It looked very different than what we saw on 9/11. The second was a collapse of the same column, but with the damage to the structure from WTC 1. It behaved in an almost identical fashion as the actual collapse, and showed that the damage on the South side was what allowed the building to crumple and "fall."
Originally posted by thegameisup
There may have been a pat of the top that moved first, but it did not effect the whole building, it was after that initial movement that the WHOLE building failed simultaneously.
You know nothing about physics, step away before you embarrass yourself even more.
If part of the building was collapsing first, then it was not an instantaneous collapse. You also have yet to prove anything you're saying with anything other than pure conjecture.