|
Just FYI, it is a crime to ship tobacco products via USPS. Additionally you can get charged for interstate tobacco trafficking if you don't have the right tax stamp. You might be better off buying smokes from overseas.
|
|
|
|
1- Explain how the seismic record supports YOUR argument. After all you were the first one to bring it up claiming it supported your argument. He who claims proves. Pointing this burden of proof back at me without explaining your own point is a logical fallacy. 2- Explain the precise mechanism that makes the force of gravity transfer laterally to throw 4 ton hunks of steel 600 feet sideways multiple times in every direction, as well as propel debris in an upward arc in violation of Newtons first law of motion by violating the forces of inertia and gravity. 3- Explain how two 110 story buildings fall at a rate of speed that demonstrates little to no resistance from thousands of supports designed with thousands of percent of redundancy thru the path of most resistance. 4- Explain how building 7, according to NIST itself fell at free fall speeds for over 2 seconds REQUIRING the synchronous removal of ALL support structures in those levels in order to be possible for any frame of time. 5- Explain who is offering this billion dollar payout for talking about the coordination of the attacks. 6- Explain how about 12 stories of a building was able to crush the other 98 stories completely to the ground without itself being destroyed, and how a similar effect could be repeated again in the other tower in violation of Newton's 3rd law of motion. 7- Explain how a hurricane is a "static load" 8- Explain how kerosene fires could weaken the steel structures enough to cause a complete collapse of both towers in spite of not being even capable of reaching sufficient temperatures to do this let alone long enough burn times to do so EVEN IF they did (which they didn't). 9- Explain how planes could impart sufficient kinetic energy to completely collapse the structures in spite of them being specifically designed to be able to withstand this exact scenario. 10- Explain how temperatures in the 800-1000 Kelvin range were created in the debris pile 5 days after the attack as measured by NASA satellites. You demand accountability for my statements over and over again (which I have been providing) yet repeatedly gloss over and just ignore anything that does not confirm your own bias. Convenient you do not have to provide any evidence in response to these points. In your mind denial is evidence enough. If evidence had indicated insurance fraud the insurance companies would have been seriously looking for it, and it's reasonable to think they would have found it. The number of people that would have been involved and the huge amount of money the insurance companies would have paid to get one of them to sing.
Yes, they would be looking for a bullet in the head for themselves and their whole family as well. You are thinking of a word, "resistance." But you don't know whether that is 0.001% reduction in the speed of a building's fall or 20%.
Note Tecshare brought in what he thought was a valid point to refute the tower easily collapsing, that it was built to withstand 20x static load. I simply showed that it experienced in excess of 120x load at the initial failure. So his own logic REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES. And the same happens as soon as I plug in numbers into "resistance." Your argument becomes an argument against your own position, dude. Your problem, not mine.
But hey, go scurry off and watch a Michael Moore film on how the Evil Bush did it. Then slither back all charged up and tell us about those Evil Jews.
Oh really? Too bad that 2000% over engineered metric was for JUST THE OUTER COLUMNS. The outer columns only supported about 40% of the total load. All you are capable of doing is twisting words any lying since you haven't a leg to stand on. Again, no matter how much weight the building could withstand, it still doesn't explain how your explanation VIOLATED NEWTONS 3RD LAW OF MOTION by having 12 floors destroy 98 floors without itself being destroyed. Your strategy is much like that of a customer service employee, waste their time until they are tired of having their time wasted and hang up. P.S. Michael Moore is a worthless sack of shit. ....
I noticed you are using an old numbered list to attempt to create even more confusion.....
If these questions are not settled, it isn't okay for you to just move on. And they're not. Don't worry, all of your ten questions can be easily debunked. Now, what about that rather laughable "free fall speed?" Let's hear where and how exactly you get to that conclusion? Because it sure isn't obvious from the seismic record. That shows relatively low levels for ten seconds, then fifteen seconds of heavy impacts. Maybe you think stuff from the top of the building show impact first, then last of all stuff from the bottom? Come on, let's hear the Truther view. Because I don't see how a calculation of "free fall time" using the absolute tip of the WTC has any relation to a collapse of the whole thing from the 78th floor. Re run a couple of those old propaganda movies like Loose Change, and get yourself an answer and present it. First of all, its very interesting that you are criticizing me for moving on without addressing questions as you do EXACTLY THAT. Second of all, I DID NO SUCH THING. I simply rearranged the former topics, so you can stick that right where you pull your answers from. You don't just get to declare something debunked and pretend like it has been addressed. Be a man and not a little crybaby bitch running away and lying when you get cornered, explain yourself like I have been doing over and over as you twist words and ignore the laws of physics. |
|
|
|
However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate. Since when is inciting hate a crime? What if an individual or organization SHOULD be hated? There are plenty. They are simply using the pre-programmed reaction to the words "hate" speech and mixing it up in a word salad to make hate = violence, and therefore equivalent to a criminal act. Everyone should be telling everyone they know about this and spamming the fuck out of each of these platforms over it. When they are forced with either removing a large percentage of their user base (and revenue) or backing down, they WILL back down. If they don't they will end up like Twitter or Target with investors fleeing like rats from a sinking ship. As mentioned before, generally people just don't really care. I mean you and I do, but ask some people you know, bet you most if not all couldn't care less. Sad really. Yep. So what? This defeatist attitude will not help anyone for sure. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke |
|
|
|
|
China has been known to be doing this for years in products ranging from cheap consumer webcams to jet fighters.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a flashlight with a built in dynamo (which has some kind of built in battery or capacitor BTW). Magic not required. It is however a good device for an emergency kit.
|
|
|
|
What is this supposed to prove, that you are a snide person nitpicking (not even accurately) a joke? |
|
|
|
However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate. Since when is inciting hate a crime? What if an individual or organization SHOULD be hated? There are plenty. They are simply using the pre-programmed reaction to the words "hate" speech and mixing it up in a word salad to make hate = violence, and therefore equivalent to a criminal act. Everyone should be telling everyone they know about this and spamming the fuck out of each of these platforms over it. When they are forced with either removing a large percentage of their user base (and revenue) or backing down, they WILL back down. If they don't they will end up like Twitter or Target with investors fleeing like rats from a sinking ship. |
|
|
|
1- Explain how the seismic record supports YOUR argument. After all you were the first one to bring it up claiming it supported your argument. He who claims proves. Pointing this burden of proof back at me without explaining your own point is a logical fallacy. 2- Explain the precise mechanism that makes the force of gravity transfer laterally to throw 4 ton hunks of steel 600 feet sideways multiple times in every direction, as well as propel debris in an upward arc in violation of Newtons first law of motion by violating the forces of inertia and gravity. 3- Explain how two 110 story buildings fall at a rate of speed that demonstrates little to no resistance from thousands of supports designed with thousands of percent of redundancy thru the path of most resistance. 4- Explain how building 7, according to NIST itself fell at free fall speeds for over 2 seconds REQUIRING the synchronous removal of ALL support structures in those levels in order to be possible for any frame of time. 5- Explain who is offering this billion dollar payout for talking about the coordination of the attacks. 6- Explain how about 12 stories of a building was able to crush the other 98 stories completely to the ground without itself being destroyed, and how a similar effect could be repeated again in the other tower in violation of Newton's 3rd law of motion. 7- Explain how a hurricane is a "static load" 8- Explain how kerosene fires could weaken the steel structures enough to cause a complete collapse of both towers in spite of not being even capable of reaching sufficient temperatures to do this let alone long enough burn times to do so EVEN IF they did (which they didn't). 9- Explain how planes could impart sufficient kinetic energy to completely collapse the structures in spite of them being specifically designed to be able to withstand this exact scenario. 10- Explain how temperatures in the 800-1000 Kelvin range were created in the debris pile 5 days after the attack as measured by NASA satellites. You demand accountability for my statements over and over again (which I have been providing) yet repeatedly gloss over and just ignore anything that does not confirm your own bias. Convenient you do not have to provide any evidence in response to these points. In your mind denial is evidence enough.
A reminder, here are the four initial questions of which we are still discussing #3 and #4. I'm not going into #1 and #2 until these two are concluded.
1. The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to collapse the structures.
2. Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause complete structural failure.
3. The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel multiple 4 ton steel beams hundreds of feet laterally at the readily observable velocities demonstrated.
4. The "free fall" speed of the buildings cannot coexist with a building collapse due to the resistant force created at the building impacts the lower levels of itself.
You asked what are "my claims."
For #3, I reply that the 100-150 TONS of TNT equivalent in the PE of the structure are SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.
For #4, I reply that the PE of the structure is SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.
It's pretty simple. You seem to believe on both points, "INSUFFICIENT," and "another explanation IS NEEDED."
On the seismic record -
Well, all I've done is ask how the heck the seismic record supports anything you say about a 10 second fall? I looked at it, and I'm just not seeing where to put the zero and the ten second mark. Do I just get to pick anywhere? Is there a place that supports your claim?
On the beams -
As for the beams being moved out, you introduced a chart that showed the extent of the debris field, and the beams are within it. So I'm not seeing what's "unusual." Is it that they were big and heavy? How big should the debris field have been to be "natural?"
I noticed you are using an old numbered list to attempt to create even more confusion. Another pathetic attempt at obfuscating true examination of the points as usual. Try to stay with the current discussion ok chief? 1- Avoided explanation. I repeat. Explain how the seismic record supports YOUR argument. After all you were the first one to bring it up claiming it supported your argument. He who claims proves. Pointing this burden of proof back at me without explaining your own point is a logical fallacy. 2- Avoided explanation. Why is the fact that the beams are within the debris field automatically normal? That is like saying a seismograph of a 9.0 earthquake is normal because it is on the chart. Zero logic there. It is evidence of explosives because gravity does not transfer to lateral movement, particularly so for a massive object which has more resistant inertia, hence more force is required to change its direction. You claim there is sufficient force, yet have no explanation of how that force is transferred laterally in violation of Newton's 1st law of motion. 3- Avoided explanation. It doesn't matter how much force was available, the laws of physics still apply. This is not an explanation, it is a generalized statement without explanation. 4- Avoided explanation. It doesn't matter how much force was available, the laws of physics still apply. This is not an explanation, it is a generalized statement without explanation. 5- Avoided completely. 6- Avoided completely. 7- Avoided completely. 8- Avoided completely. 9- Avoided explanation. It doesn't matter how much force was available, the laws of physics still apply. This is not an explanation, it is a generalized statement without explanation. 10- Avoided completely. It is very telling how you equivocate over every word I use, yet you can not back up even your most basic assertions and simply have to resort to declaring it a fact without any substantiation whatsoever in order to prevent any actual debate of the point. |
|
|
|
|
um... you might want to cancel your credit card...
|
|
|
|
The hat is too low... Makes her look like she was hit with the zika virus...
Good effort though.
 Nope. Plenty of room. |
|
|
|
 Happy now? |
|
|
|
Help me out a bit here. I said ...
"Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is. Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time. "
Just do it, please.
As soon as you: 1- Explain how the seismic record supports YOUR argument. After all you were the first one to bring it up claiming it supported your argument. He who claims proves. Pointing this burden of proof back at me without explaining your own point is a logical fallacy. 2- Explain the precise mechanism that makes the force of gravity transfer laterally to throw 4 ton hunks of steel 600 feet sideways multiple times in every direction, as well as propel debris in an upward arc in violation of Newtons first law of motion by violating the forces of inertia and gravity. 3- Explain how two 110 story buildings fall at a rate of speed that demonstrates little to no resistance from thousands of supports designed with thousands of percent of redundancy thru the path of most resistance. 4- Explain how building 7, according to NIST itself fell at free fall speeds for over 2 seconds REQUIRING the synchronous removal of ALL support structures in those levels in order to be possible for any frame of time. 5- Explain who is offering this billion dollar payout for talking about the coordination of the attacks. 6- Explain how about 12 stories of a building was able to crush the other 98 stories completely to the ground without itself being destroyed, and how a similar effect could be repeated again in the other tower in violation of Newton's 3rd law of motion. 7- Explain how a hurricane is a "static load" 8- Explain how kerosene fires could weaken the steel structures enough to cause a complete collapse of both towers in spite of not being even capable of reaching sufficient temperatures to do this let alone long enough burn times to do so EVEN IF they did (which they didn't). 9- Explain how planes could impart sufficient kinetic energy to completely collapse the structures in spite of them being specifically designed to be able to withstand this exact scenario. 10- Explain how temperatures in the 800-1000 Kelvin range were created in the debris pile 5 days after the attack as measured by NASA satellites. You demand accountability for my statements over and over again (which I have been providing) yet repeatedly gloss over and just ignore anything that does not confirm your own bias. Convenient you do not have to provide any evidence in response to these points. In your mind denial is evidence enough. |
|
|
|
Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it. "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEEDNo, that's your distorted reading of the text. You assume that the first exterior panels to strike the ground came from the very top of the tower. Get real. Please revise your math to include a variety of heights from which the first panels to hit the ground came from. ....
didn't have a clue that the potential energy of any object at 1000 feet was 500 times what would be required to move that object 600 feet sideways
The only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally.
Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.”
IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.
The force required is proportionally related to the distance, not exponentially related. You were wrong, admit it and move on. ....As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument .....
Okay, let's use eyeballs. I take a small bag of flour outside, throw it up in the air. It comes down, and goes splat. Flour goes everywhere. Hey, guess what? There's sort of a cloud of white over where it landed. Some of it went up, and some went sideways. But you claim gravity only works downward? Hmm....
So what the heck is your "10 seconds" claiming? That's when the entire mass of the WTC hit the ground? When the first piece of junk hit the ground? When the last piece hit the ground?
Now let's talk about your seismic charts. Can you kindly show me where the famous ten seconds begins and ends? Thanks.
I'm just not seeing how you get a precise number from the seismic charts. They show exactly what I would expect to see, waveforms from a big pile of rubble forming. Please show us how you read this chart to get your precise "free fall" speeds. I'm not buying this garbage one bit.
The First Building's fall:  Well? Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is. Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time. By the way. Yes, I am perfectly fine sticking with 8th grade physics, chemistry and math to refute your "Experts." Bring them on. Here's a challenge. Show me one that requires 9th grade work to rebut their bat shit crazy Truthiness. LOL... Deny laws of physics, talk about 8th grade physics, make personal attacks. I am seeing a pattern here. |
|
|
|
yeah i ever read an article that there are no solid proof of mobile phone radiation can cause cancer because the radiation is still in a limit that the body can resist, however some of the researcher said that the tumor or cancer can be arise after 20 years of mobile phone radiation
so i dont know which one should i believe, but its better to prevent than to cure, so i make a small step of prevention by turning off my mobiles while i am sleeping
You touched on a key point that is just starting to be addressed. Long term exposure. |
|
|
|
|
A much simpler solution: a piece of electrical tape over the lens.
|
|
|
|
Rare pepe trump. +1 bonus camel toe |
|
|
|
Actually, you asked if I considered a hurricane a static load. Your words-
As far as your point about 2000% over engineering being a static load, please tell me, what do you call wind shear? Is the fact that the building was designed to stay standing in a hurricane a static load?
Then you've got a couple little problems with your claim about "let's use the official report." Here are your words -
I never even debated the .8 seconds. You can have it, not that it helps your argument other than providing another distraction. Lets use the official report which states 10 seconds which IS STILL FREE FALL SPEED. Your talk about the "margin of error" again is just more word salad to attempt to sound like you have an argument.
No, it's your problem to show what your margin of error is in the quoted "10 seconds."
What I see is a huge dust cloud covering up precise measurements and a seismic record that goes on and on and on. So you want 0.8 seconds, fine. Then you've got "Something close to free fall," don't you? Because "Something between 10 and 10.8 seconds" is not "exactly free fall."
Anyway, do you even have a clue as to what the time for "free fall" of this structure would have been? Because I sure don't. Let's look at another "official report."
The technical information on the building collapse is in the NIST reports. The NIST FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) site has the pertinent information.
The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds.
So what the heck is your "10 seconds" claiming? That's when the entire mass of the WTC hit the ground? When the first piece of junk hit the ground? When the last piece hit the ground?
That is interesting, because these are your exact words, stated before the above quote I might add. Is a hurricane a static load? Have you ever been in a hurricane? Even been separated by one pane of glass from a full blown hurricane? I have. I was stuck for four miserable days in a hotel with no power in Kowloon. Yes, I would call it a static load in the horizontal direction, unless some dynamic oscillations set up in the building structure. The load presented was remarkably constant over the duration.
Want to argue that one? Go ahead.
Funny, you can't even seem to keep your own lies straight. I already repeatedly stated I am using the number of 10 seconds from The 9/11 Commission Report. Is the official report too "conspiratorial" for you now? The number of 9.2 seconds is from independent video analysis. The .8 seconds is not "a margin of error", because it is the difference between the independent analysis and the official 9/11 report..... Not that you bothered to read it, but I already sourced the final NIST report which admitted free fall speeds in building 7. As far as towers 1 and 2, NIST HAS NO OFFICIAL EXPLANATION of how the towers fell, only a collection of assumptions. Assumptions based on "dry labed" models that have widely been disputed for lack of accuracy completely dismissing things like the core support structure in their models. Additionally your quote from the NIST F.A.Q. says nothing about free fall speeds, it says what their interpretation of the seismic record is. Nice attempt at misdirection. You are the one supporting the official narrative, not me. I only used numbers out of The 9/11 Commission Report so that it would not simply be used by you as another source of distraction from the violation of the laws of physics that had to have happened even based on these numbers for the official narrative to be true. Since you are so insistent that the seismic records corroborate the official narrative, lets take a look at them shall we? The First Building's fall: The following are excerpts from a report by Dr. André Rousseau. He is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology...... So I guess you concede that the 2000% is a static load. Then you have to concede that the simple test case I showed with 120x weight is more than 20x.... Now let's talk about your seismic charts. Can you kindly show me where the famous ten seconds begins and ends? Thanks. Dr. Rousseau is obviously bat shit crazy. We've already established the TNT equivalent of one building's fall to be equal to more than 100 TONS OF TNT. What more is needed? Nothing more. I'm just not seeing how you get a precise number from the seismic charts. They show exactly what I would expect to see, waveforms from a big pile of rubble forming. Please show us how you read this chart to get your precise "free fall" speeds. I'm not buying this garbage one bit. So far you've showed you -
don't know or comprehend static vs dynamic load
were not aware that the dynamic load dwarfs the building's strength and made it inescapable they would fall
didn't have a clue that force to propel and object sideways was just the initial push, not "exponentially larger as you go further"
have no clue as to how to even measure "free fall velocity"
didn't have a clue that the potential energy of any object at 1000 feet was 500 times what would be required to move that object 600 feet sideways
Believe that the lid can be kept on a conspiracy with thousands of people involvedI don't think you are qualified or competent to discuss the mechanisms of failure of the Twin Towers. Basically there is not one assertion you have made that checks out. Not one. "don't know or comprehend static vs dynamic load"Sorry but no, you don't get to speak for me. Can you explain to me exactly how a 2000% STATIC load would suddenly appear in a building? Are they loading heavy machinery via a teleporter or a black hole? What purpose would designing a structure only to withstand your so called static loads serve when any load applied to it would be dynamic considering the building is constantly in motion from the wind? Lets address where this number of 2000% engineering redundancy came from. " live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." -John Skilling, Chief structural engineer of the World Trade Center from "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings", ENR, 4/2/1964 LIVE LOADS. LIVE = DYNAMIC. Not static. Additionally this is ONLY the perimeter columns, not the entire building. Maybe you can tell me about how hurricanes are static loads some more to keep avoiding the fact that you have no argument. were not aware that the dynamic load dwarfs the building's strength and made it inescapable they would fallWhat? What the fuck is this? I provide physical evidence, demonstrate the claimed violation of the laws of physics, provide testimony from experts in the towers construction and others, You talk about bowling balls and now it is inescapable? Hey, since you think you have all the proof you need, why not claim the 1 million Euros offered here? didn't have a clue that force to propel and object sideways was just the initial push, not "exponentially larger as you go further"I think you are feigning some serious reading comprehension issues in order to try to weasel in the facade of an argument here. "THE INITIAL PUSH" is what is required to be larger the further the distance the object is to travel. This is not debatable, just like if you have a bullet of a set mass you need to add more powder to it to get it to travel further. If you are arguing against this fact then you are beyond retarded and I am not wasting another second on your retardation on this point, feigned or not.  have no clue as to how to even measure "free fall velocity"Gravity causes freely falling objects to increase their speed by about 9.81 m/s² at sea level. The height of the roof line of WTC 1 is 1,368 ft or 417.0 m. t = √ 2d/g d = distance (417m), t = time (solving for time), g = rate of acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s²) so: t = 9.22 seconds, which is in precise correlation with the video analysis provided earlier. Note, this does not even account for air resistance let alone the resistance of any of the structure below it which would increase the fall time significantly more than the .8 seconds differential between this free fall in vacuum and the official report time of 10 seconds. Newton's third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in freefall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down, and by Newton's third law, the falling object cannot be pushing on anything else either. Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it. "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEEDYes, an expert Dr. in the field of geophysics and acoustics is crazy, and you know more than him, just like you know more than the chief structural engineer of the towers  Were you not just saying something about ad hominem attacks being the last refuge of losers? Conveniently your little excuse allows you to just dismiss all of the physical evidence he presents, and hey why not throw out the actual seismic data too simply because he referenced it while you are at it. As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument and can eventually just drop the point when I produce even more physical evidence. You are the one that argued that the seismic data corroborated your argument, why don't you show me? He who claims proves, and I have been proving the fuck out of everything I have stated while you just proclaim you are correct without an iota of supporting evidence or references, only proclamations of righteousness. didn't have a clue that the potential energy of any object at 1000 feet was 500 times what would be required to move that object 600 feet sidewaysThe only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally. Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.” IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.   Believe that the lid can be kept on a conspiracy with thousands of people involvedThere are plenty of people speaking out, and a lot of them ended up dead. If anyone is trying to keep a lid on something here it is you. Tell me, how do companies create multi-billion dollar research projects if the secrecy of the project is not possible? How was the Manhattan project completed in secrecy? As I explained through a combination of compartmentalization, self interest, threats of repercussions, and flat out murder this is quite possible. BTW, you still haven't explained who is offering that billion dollar payout for people to come forward about it. I am not an expert on this subject (neither are you), but the people I have sourced ARE. So far you haven't sourced jack shit, all you have are your empty claims.  |
|
|
|
I just saw the most epic Trump Protestor video I have ever seen and I just had to share it with you people here.  https://youtu.be/T9dsYEszGmo?t=2597Transcript: The only reason that they started shooting tear gas at us was because an old man was pushed by a police officer. I asked, let him pass! Let him walk that way...he had a cane! No, he hit him in the face for no apparent reason! When Donald Trump showed up look at how heavy and hate he brought here! I stand for people! Uhh ...our... armed services! Our men and women in uniform we're apposed to stand united, but he brings division! He brings hatred. We are apposed to stand united aren't we? Aren't we all American's? Are...arv... our liberty is apposed to be uphold! Our Constitution is apposed to be held and the strongest upset... my bad....huhu. The reason ah, yeah, start fires...fires were started. Earlier, but when that man was attacked by a police officer that incited vylence. Obviously they brought it when they attacked that innocent man. Now, WTF is that appost ta be about?! Mah bad... scuse my language. But you know aaa....ehhh... look it...we are apposed to protect foreign and domestic, but they'r domestic here! They're bringing domestic terrorism to us! We're all Americans, we have the...free stand where we please! We're not cheap! We're not slaves! Oh...my bad... and you know we apposed to stand! Look at what theyr tryna do, they'r tryna force us on our KNEES! American was founded on revolution! We're founded on immigrants. George Washington, we should take example. Abraham Lincoln, Patton, they fought for this country didn't they? Didn't they do any good? We must stand! We stand united! A for effort, F- for execution. |
|
|
|
|
The shoes are off too. Resist tyranny in safety and comfort.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
