What is your theory on the events of 9/11???

Originally posted by nixie_nox
That the government knew it was going to happen, but Al Queda switched the day.

Flight 93 was taken down by our own military.

on the morning of 12/9 at 5.10 am uk time it was announced from the whitehouse that they had shot PLANE[S] out of the sky that statement sure woke me up

I closed the case, after researching this site; and having researched this 'event' for 3 years. NO ONE has mentioned this lady, and she should be taken seriously. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY

Originally posted by SpittinTruth
I closed the case, after researching this site; and having researched this 'event' for 3 years. NO ONE has mentioned this lady, and she should be taken seriously. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY

You are too fast with closing the case. Judy Wood was mentioned million times. Her problem is that she explains the dustification of towers with con artist Hutchison effect. The goal of her controlled opposition "project" is to collect the evidences of nuclear explosions and explain them with absurd theory. The evidences are dismissed together with the theory then. Take truth, add lie, all together become lie.

Originally posted by thedman
Maybe can explain this .....

Somebody planted a aircraft part on top of her

Easy. What proof do you have that she was hit by an aircraft part?
There were debris of the building of course after the explosion.

A doctor, saying something on prepared by official video cannot be 100% proof, anyway. He is just a human, that can be bought or threatened. Physics is better proof then people.

There is also another version.
" I believe they shot an airplane part out of a cannon on the 80th floor of WTC2. That's what it looks like on the video. This would explain why the molten metal was seen pouring out of that location before the demolition. They had to melt down the cannon, lest it be blown clear during the demolition."

Your "proof" can be manufactured, it is not rock solid.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by r2d246
I think if that was legit then the plane would litterally bounce off the side.

No offense, but that's just stupid. Read up on elementary physics. Try force calculations. The faster an object moves, the more energy it has to impart on impact, exponentially. Then, try to tell me that the walls of the tower would be able to not only absorb the impact energy completely, but that they would reflect the plane away.

It's like you didn't even go through a basic science class.

Man , you need to stop waking me up like this - V -

Tell me , with your ever changing ->opinion

Originally posted by Varemia
Read up on elementary physics. Try force calculations. The faster an object moves, the more energy it has to impart on impact, exponentially. Then, try to tell me that the walls of the tower would be able to not only absorb the impact energy completely, but that they would reflect the plane away.

I think it's you who needs to read up on the relevant physics, which would be Newtonian physics...

THIRD LAW: If two objects interact, say in a collision, the force exerted by object 1 on object 2 is matched by a force of exerted by object 2 on object 1 of the same size, but in the opposite direction.

[2.1] GALILEAN RELATIVITY / NEWTON'S THREE LAWS OF MOTION

That means any increase in force is felt equally by both objects. Mass is the important part of the equation**. When you do a force calculation, the result for both objects would be the same.

Newtons three laws are the basis of classical mechanics.

In physics, classical mechanics is one of the two major sub-fields of mechanics, which is concerned with the set of physical laws describing the motion of bodies under the action of a system of forces. The study of the motion of bodies is an ancient one, making classical mechanics one of the oldest and largest subjects in science, engineering and technology.

Classical mechanics

BTW Newtons three laws are one of the first things taught in elementary physics...

Elementary Classical Physics

**

Newton's third law of motion is naturally applied to collisions between two objects. In a collision between two objects, both objects experience forces that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Such forces often cause one object to speed up (gain momentum) and the other object to slow down (lose momentum). According to Newton's third law, the forces on the two objects are equal in magnitude. While the forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, the accelerations of the objects are not necessarily equal in magnitude. In accord with Newton's second law of motion, the acceleration of an object is dependent upon both force and mass. Thus, if the colliding objects have unequal mass, they will have unequal accelerations as a result of the contact force that results during the collision.

The Law of Action-Reaction

No offense...

reply to post by r2d246


we all know it was an inside job like they wanted to do with Kennedy in operation north woods.
Hell since the war with Spain when we blew up our own ship so as to provoke a war.

Mosad probably did it since they have been seen documenting the event, which shows foreknowledge.

They did it so as to go into Iraq and pass PATRIOT ACT.

Murder by our elected and our allies against their own people. High treason
.

reply to post by DonJuan

Easy. What proof do you have that she was hit by an aircraft part?

Are you heard of hearing or just dense ....?

"almost sliced in half by landing gear of second jet....." about 30 minutes into video

This is from a documentary on NY Downtown Hospital several blocks south of WTC which became the
defacto ER for the diaster scene as routes to the other hospitals were blocked by debris or traffic

reply to post by ANOK

That means any increase in force is felt equally by both objects.

Thats nice. Too bad on 9/11 there were thousands and thousands of objects involved. Not calculate the forces on each object and then get back to me.

Originally posted by RockLobster
Man , you need to stop waking me up like this - V -

Tell me , with your ever changing ->opinion

Originally posted by thegameisup
There was not enough energy left after the impact to 'knock off the fireproofing' you know very little about what you are trying to convey, and are just what is known as a 'repeater', a parrot. You are parroting the NIST report, that has been proven by many to be a pack of lies filled with very flawed science.

The fireproofing was basically a sprayed-on powder. How have you determined that it would be undamaged by the plane impact? To my understanding, the fireproofing would regularly fall off in the event of electrical work when a worker would bump into it. I imagine that just the vibration from impact would knock off what wasn't directly hit.

Originally posted by thegameisup
There was not enough energy left after the impact to 'knock off the fireproofing'

Go to the 2:43 mark on this vidieo



This video was shot before the towers collapsed.

Can you explain to us where all that dust came from ?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by DonJuan

 

Easy. What proof do you have that she was hit by an aircraft part?

Are you heard of hearing or just dense ....?

"almost sliced in half by landing gear of second jet....." about 30 minutes into video

This is from a documentary on NY Downtown Hospital several blocks south of WTC which became the
defacto ER for the diaster scene as routes to the other hospitals were blocked by debris or traffic

Yeah, where did the claim in the video come from? Where is the source, where is the evidence to prove what exactly hit Deborah?

Please do provide some hard evidence, someone saying it in a video is not evidence because we need to know the source of their claim, and real evidence to back up the source.

I doubt you will provide any real evidence. Surely you are not so gullible to believe a few words in a video that could easily be made up to fit the OS?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by thegameisup
There was not enough energy left after the impact to 'knock off the fireproofing'

Go to the 2:43 mark on this vidieo

This video was shot before the towers collapsed.

Can you explain to us where all that dust came from ?

Hahahahahahahahha! you trying to say all the dust is fireproofing! Hahahahahahaha! How ridiculous!

The first people in the video were actors, the guy says: "it was not a bomb, it was an american airlines jet, probably a 757"

Hahahahahahaha! What a pile of crock! Why would he even say that about the bomb!?!

Blatantly an actor going off an OS script! If you are gullible enough to believe this then that is your choice, but it's totally fake.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by thegameisup
There was not enough energy left after the impact to 'knock off the fireproofing' you know very little about what you are trying to convey, and are just what is known as a 'repeater', a parrot. You are parroting the NIST report, that has been proven by many to be a pack of lies filled with very flawed science.

The fireproofing was basically a sprayed-on powder. How have you determined that it would be undamaged by the plane impact? To my understanding, the fireproofing would regularly fall off in the event of electrical work when a worker would bump into it. I imagine that just the vibration from impact would knock off what wasn't directly hit.

You can imagine all you like, but all the fireproofing on all the steel beams in the whole building was not affected, maybe a small amount, but not enough to make it collapse.

Keep clinging onto that theory, but even without it the steel would have been able to withstand the fire.

Originally posted by thegameisup
You can imagine all you like, but all the fireproofing on all the steel beams in the whole building was not affected, maybe a small amount, but not enough to make it collapse.

Keep clinging onto that theory, but even without it the steel would have been able to withstand the fire.

Based on what, exactly? You keep making claims and assumptions, but you've backed up nothing you've said so far.

reply to post by thegameisup

Yeah, where did the claim in the video come from? Where is the source, where is the evidence to prove what exactly hit Deborah?

Please do provide some hard evidence, someone saying it in a video is not evidence because we need to know the source of their claim, and real evidence to back up the source

Why the sudden demand for the providence of the evidence I posted? Considering that you are notorious for
posting some of the most idiotic and false claims I have seen

OK

FDNY EMTs who treated her on the street

Once we started taking off, I guess 30 feet in front of us, there was a lady on the ground by the curb and she was just waving her arms. That's all she could wave. Her legs were crushed. Apparently she got hit by part of the landing gear, one of the tires of the airplane. There was a large tire next to her. FDNY EMT Orlando Martinez

...we started making our way to NYU Downtown Hospital, Beekman, to drop off our first set of patients when we got flagged down for another lady who got hit by the landing gear of the first plane. FDNY EMT Frank Puma

In the video can see the EMTs working on her

The video was produced by a British documentary maker for the 10 th Anniversary of 9/11 about NY Downtown
Hospital. NY Downtown was considered so small that was left out of OEM disaster planning for NYC



Suppose can find some conspiracy in that

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by thegameisup

 

Yeah, where did the claim in the video come from? Where is the source, where is the evidence to prove what exactly hit Deborah?

Please do provide some hard evidence, someone saying it in a video is not evidence because we need to know the source of their claim, and real evidence to back up the source

Why the sudden demand for the providence of the evidence I posted? Considering that you are notorious for
posting some of the most idiotic and false claims I have seen

OK

FDNY EMTs who treated her on the street

Once we started taking off, I guess 30 feet in front of us, there was a lady on the ground by the curb and she was just waving her arms. That's all she could wave. Her legs were crushed. Apparently she got hit by part of the landing gear, one of the tires of the airplane. There was a large tire next to her. FDNY EMT Orlando Martinez

...we started making our way to NYU Downtown Hospital, Beekman, to drop off our first set of patients when we got flagged down for another lady who got hit by the landing gear of the first plane. FDNY EMT Frank Puma

In the video can see the EMTs working on her

The video was produced by a British documentary maker for the 10 th Anniversary of 9/11 about NY Downtown
Hospital. NY Downtown was considered so small that was left out of OEM disaster planning for NYC



Suppose can find some conspiracy in that

That is just words on a screen, I said show me where the official source of information is. I want to see an official report as to where all the 4 landing gears/tyres were found, with associated pictures. They did take pictures of some supposed landing gear, and taped off the areas where they landed, so I'm sure to prove your words on a screen are actually real and not lies (which I believe they are), then you'll be able to provide a real official reference documented by the government, with the 4 official government documented locations of the landing gear.

If you cannot provide these then it just highlights your eyes.

Considering that you are notorious for posting some of the most idiotic and false claims I have seen

That quote by you is quite hilarious! You're entitled to your opinion, but please do provide some of these idiotic false claims you speak of!

Back your lies up, or they are just still lies.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by thegameisup
You can imagine all you like, but all the fireproofing on all the steel beams in the whole building was not affected, maybe a small amount, but not enough to make it collapse.

Keep clinging onto that theory, but even without it the steel would have been able to withstand the fire.

Based on what, exactly? You keep making claims and assumptions, but you've backed up nothing you've said so far.

Based on the laws of physics, something you have zero grasp of!

Go back to school.

Originally posted by thegameisup
Based on the laws of physics, something you have zero grasp of!

Go back to school.

Which ones? Which specific laws of physics?

You seem to have this all figured out, so please, be specific.