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... Nothing that refutes the 9/11 inside job here.  Sure, buddy. Just slide your story around so that it doesn't require explosives, or magical nano-thermite cast into the WTC concrete. Keep the lies flowing, so that the next Muslim terrorist is certain his people are the victims, and certain the Great Satan is the Great Satan. A good, solid propaganda front doesn't need hard physics or solid facts. Slide that story around, buddy. |
|
|
|
I have no idea what some of the reasons for your questions were. Some are subject to decisions of military commanders. Re #2, there was no USAF in 1945. There was the "Army Air Core." Re this statement, Ah my bad it is called USAAF. United States Army Air Force. But that doesnt change much or? Capitulation was inevitable even without an invasion of the USA.
I think you mean "even without an invasion of Japan."
Of course ^^" (i think corrrect use of grammar would be: invasion by the USA) This falls into the category of "armchair generaling," you are claiming something is easy which men in the field at that time thought was extremely difficult. Have fun with that. It's more accurate to say that Japan would have accepted a conditional surrender but was prepared to fight it out rather than accept an unconditional surrender. Are you saying this persons are all armchair generals without knowledgde about warfare: General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral William D. Leahy, General Carl Spaatz and Admiral Chester W. Nimitz ? RE #4, they did this but in secret, in New Mexico.  Well that for sure didnt make the japs surrender faster! I though the answers to my questions would show that the use of the bombs were not war deciding. Look, I can't answer questions that are phrased to only have one politically correct answer. That's ridiculous. I can tell you this. The US only had two bombs. Japan was working on a bomb - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stmAll talk about massing forces, attack from the sea, options other than using the bomb become moot at the moment the adversary has a bomb, don't they? Check out the leaflet that was dropped on Japan.
TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.
We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.
We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.
Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.
You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.
EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
Because your military leaders have rejected the thirteen part surrender declaration, two momentous events have occurred in the last few days.
The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war with you.
Also, because of your leaders' refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb.
A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed.
Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the emperor now to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan.
Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.
EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
Source: Harry S. Truman Library, Miscellaneous historical document file, no. 258. |
|
|
|
In this bombing and then subsequently blocking Japan's signing peace treaty with USSR, USA did everything to leave a festering geopolitical wound on the Eastern border of USSR. As it stands now, Japan is still de juro in a state of war with Russia.
The primary goal of the nuking (just like the American fire-bombing of Dresden) was to intimidate USSR (and to leave scorched earth if USSR did venture into those territories). The Americans were planning to nuke the USSR and China as well, but they shelved those plans as these nations were able to create nuclear weapons themselves. And this is one of the reasons why the North Koreans are trying so hard to build the nuclear weapons and ICBMs. They know that the Americans have no inhibitions on using nukes on civilians. Well, that certainly rewrites the "Mutual Assured Destruction" deterrant strategy of the Cold War. By that theory (and for the nuclears of that era) they were weapons that were very non-precise. |
|
|
|
Yes of course it wouldnt have been a cakewalk but reality was that imperial japan lost all offensive capacities and had nearly no defensive capacities left.
The US at that time had absolute air superiority and could just bomb the rest of japan as they did before.
There was no need to rush the unconditional surrender with 2 atomic bombs.
Dont you agree there?
Not at all. Your concept of "no need" runs contrary to that of Allied military commanders of that era. They viewed the Japan mainland as a tough problem. The number often cited is a million total dead - military and civilian. Sure, they might have moved on the beaches and found the Japanese military capitulated, but why should they have relied on that? Their experience was these guys would fight to the last man, run at them with bayonets after running out of ammo, and such. If you were a military commander, and had relied on the most optimistic outcome for your decisions, you would have been an utter fool. I dont know where you have you information from but for example General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral William D. Leahy, General Carl Spaatz and Admiral Chester W. Nimitz were some of the high ranked militaries that opposed the use of the nukes. It seems you dont understand the fact that japan had zero offensive capacities left and its implications: Capitulation was inevitable even without an invasion of the USA. Please try to answer this question first before you might want to change the topic: 1. So you deny that japan was already on the ground with pretty much nothing left? 2. USAF was liying by saying a conventional war would make japan capitulate in december 1945? 3. The studies about the possible victims of Operation downfall was changed several times - the original stated 25.000-50.000 victims and after the third of forth change it was over 1 million - why? 4. Why didnt the USA just used the atomic bomb over unhabitated land as a demonstration? 5. Why was there no warning for the first bomb? 6. The use of the bomb was decided on 16 july, recalled by eisenhower, who also was against the use, because he was the opinion the japanese would surrender when the soviets would join. Why was it decided long before the ultimatum of surrender? 7. Why do japanese historians and military say that the atomic bombs were not the reason for their surrender but the soviets joining the war? I have no idea what some of the reasons for your questions were. Some are subject to decisions of military commanders. Re #2, there was no USAF in 1945. There was the "Army Air Core." Re this statement, Capitulation was inevitable even without an invasion of the USA. I think you mean "even without an invasion of Japan." This falls into the category of "armchair generaling," you are claiming something is easy which men in the field at that time thought was extremely difficult. Have fun with that. It's more accurate to say that Japan would have accepted a conditional surrender but was prepared to fight it out rather than accept an unconditional surrender. RE #4, they did this but in secret, in New Mexico. |
|
|
|
There is no concept of Female circumcision in mainstream Islam. I just got to know about it here. Stupid misinformate faggots create such pages/threads to get attention.
Please explain this further. Are you saying it does not exist in Saudi, Pakistan, or Egypt? I live in Pakistan which is 20% of total Muslim population world wide and never in my life I ever heard about such a thing. Here is wikipedia, but note it's source material is somewhat dated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_countryFemale genital mutilation is practiced among some Pakistani communities, according to sources dated to the 1990s and 2000s.[169] Gibeau reports, for example, FGM is widespread in Bohra Muslims of Pakistan[14][229] The Sheedi Muslim community of Pakistan, considered to be of Arab-African origins, practice FGM.[230] The practice is also found in Muslim communities near Pakistan's Iran-Balochistan border.[231] |
|
|
|
There is no concept of Female circumcision in mainstream Islam. I just got to know about it here. Stupid misinformate faggots create such pages/threads to get attention.
Please explain this further. Are you saying it does not exist in Saudi, Pakistan, or Egypt? |
|
|
|
Sanders would have been the most sensible candidate for presidency. Wouldn't he?
No. A guy like that could easily be convinced to start military actions, basing his decisions ideologically instead of on practical grounds. |
|
|
|
Iraqi Migrant Who Wore T-Shirt Saying ‘I’m Muslim, Don’t Panic’ Is Beaten By Three Other Muslims An asylum seeker who jokingly wore a T-shirt saying ‘I’m Muslim, don’t panic’ was so savagely beaten by his fellow refugees that he had to be rushed to hospital. The 23-year-old Iraqi had thought that his fellow Islamic asylum seekers would see the funny side, but instead they accused him of offending their religion and decided to teach him a painful lesson. The man was attacked in the evening as he returned to his asylum seeker home in Berlin, Germany wearing the T-shirt which he had just bought. He was allegedly confronted by three angry Muslims who ripped up the T-shirt and ran off after beating him. Two of the alleged attackers, a 27-year-old from Syria and a 33-year-old from Lebanon, were later arrested on charges of aggravated GBH. Police said a report would be prepared for prosecutors. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3613001/Iraqi-migrant-bought-T-shirt-saying-m-Muslim-don-t-panic-hospitalised-three-Islamic-asylum-seekers-thought-insulting-religion.html Well, I like his Tshirt. |
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
|
Yes of course it wouldnt have been a cakewalk but reality was that imperial japan lost all offensive capacities and had nearly no defensive capacities left.
The US at that time had absolute air superiority and could just bomb the rest of japan as they did before.
There was no need to rush the unconditional surrender with 2 atomic bombs.
Dont you agree there?
Not at all. Your concept of "no need" runs contrary to that of Allied military commanders of that era. They viewed the Japan mainland as a tough problem. The number often cited is a million total dead - military and civilian. Sure, they might have moved on the beaches and found the Japanese military capitulated, but why should they have relied on that? Their experience was these guys would fight to the last man, run at them with bayonets after running out of ammo, and such. If you were a military commander, and had relied on the most optimistic outcome for your decisions, you would have been an utter fool. |
|
|
|
I still dont understand why you are making a connection between the use of atomic bombs and the atrocities of imperial japans army.....
There is no moral (equivalence) in using an atomic bomb That says nothing of the "Rape of Nanking," it says nothing of 80,000 rapes and 300-400,000 slaughtered, just to make a point. The point made is that unless the enemy population submits, they will have the same happen to them. If you want to suggest that the same point is made by Hiroshima, go ahead. But then what happens to your argument about "there is no moral equivalence in using an atomic bomb?" It's eliminated. |
|
|
|
.....By the time the first bomb was used they were maybe less than two weeks away of starting the invasion of mainland japan......
No. Unless maybe you refer to a couple of aircraft overflights as "starting the invasion." I'm just thinking in terms of the massive numbers of ships, equipment and personnel movements required to "invade the mainland japan." Just reduce it to numbers and you'll see what I mean. Equipment has to be moved across mainland Europe and Russia to ports. Ships have to be in those ports. Men have to be moved. Just getting that kind of invasion fleet ready to sail would IMHO take at least three months. |
|
|
|
Maybe wait and get 95% of what they wanted instead of unconditional surrender? Or like he said let the soviets invade. By the time the first bomb was used they were maybe less than two weeks away of starting the invasion of mainland japan. Americans weren't in danger. Japan was isolated, with shortages of resources and food. Nothing they could do. With time probably would have faced a coup too. The main purpose of nuking Japan was to prevent the Soviets invading that nation. Japan had some of the most advanced industries at that time, and the Americans wanted to keep them rather than ceding them to the USSR. I have to say that this strategy was successful. Look at Japan right now. It is full of American military bases. That's simply not the historical timeline. The Soviets had not wanted a two front war and had a non agression pact with Japan. The decisions were made considerably in advance. The Soviets were already in the process of invading Manchuria when the bombs dropped. (Aug 6 and Aug 9 of 1945). That the Soviets were moving in Manchuria does not mean that they had battle plans and or equipment movements in place for an attack on the Japanese homeland. That would have been a huge military operation. Since the only remaining combatant was Japan, such an operation would have been joint US and Soviet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29On July 26, the US, UK and China made the Potsdam Declaration, an ultimatum calling for the Japanese surrender which if ignored would lead to their "prompt and utter destruction". The invasion began on August 8, 1945, precisely three months after the German surrender on May 8 (May 9, 0:43 Moscow time). The commencement of the invasion fell between the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. Although Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had not been told much detail of the Western Allies' atomic bomb program by Allied governments. However, by virtue of the timing of the agreements at Tehran and Yalta, and the long term buildup of Soviet forces in the Far East since Tehran, it is clear that news of the attacks on the two cities played no major role in the timing of the Soviet invasion; the date of the invasion was foreshadowed by the Yalta agreement, the date of the German surrender, and the fact that on August 3, Marshal Vasilevsky reported to Stalin that, if necessary, he could attack on the morning of August 5. Furthermore, while Stalin could reasonably have concluded that an atomic bombing of Japan was imminent, it does not appear he was overly impressed with the atomic bomb's potential. |
|
|
|
....What may be a little bit surprising is the number of situations where the people on scene subdue or shoot the attacker themselves. That’s what happened in nearly 40 percent of all the incidents that were resolved before the police arrived.
The PTB only want publicized the NEWS that puts them at the top of the hill. And the lone individual who handles such a problem CAN NEVER be made to look a hero. |
|
|
|
Maybe you should fact check in some history books wilikion, seems you have no clue about the historical and military background of the pacific war.
I will give you a short introduction:
1. UDSSR was preparing the invasion of mainland japan - US intervention wasn't even needed.
2. The military-industrial complex of japan was nearly completely destroyed same as their overall industry.
3. Japan had nearly no war important resources left ( mainly fuel, food, arms and land/air/sea vehicles )
To summarize: they had nothing left.
Still the US decided to use one atomic bomb on 6. August 1945 and 3 days later a second atomic bomb.
Also the use of the atomic bomb by the US was decided before the Allies sent an ultimatum of surrender to imperial japan which imho is a good clue why the US used the atomic bomb:
As a real life test in a war and much more important as a display of power to the sowjets.
It has nothing to do with saving american or japanese lifes. A legend for the sheeples - like the vietnam war that was lost at home; just another "Dolchstoß-Legende".
I'm not under the impression that invading Japan would have been a cakewalk. The US was demanding unconditional surrender, and the Japanese had refused that. It certainly did have to do with saving lives. You might argue it was multifactorial, of course. |
|
|
|
There is no Quran text to "female mutilation" - 100% guarantee, and Islam have nothing in it.
Go read your stupid book again.. The fitrah is five things, including circumcision They have more than one stupid book they must read apparently. Vika is technically correct, apparently. |
|
|
|
Article In Saudi Daily: U.S. Planned, Carried Out 9/11 Attacks – But Blames Others For Them
On the eve of President Obama's April 2016 visit to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Congress began debating the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), that would, inter alia, allow the families of victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the Saudi government for damages. Also in April 2016, the New York Times published that a 2002 congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks had found that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot. The commission's conclusions, said the paper, were specified in a report that has not been released publicly.[1]
The JASTA bill, which was passed by the Senate on May 17, 2016, triggered fury in Saudi Arabia, expressed both in statements by the Saudi foreign minister and in scathing attacks on the U.S. in the Saudi press.[2] On April 28, 2016, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat published an exceptionally harsh article on this topic by Saudi legal expert Katib Al-Shammari, who argued that the U.S. itself had planned and carried out 9/11....
That's the sort of anti-US propaganda I'm talking about. Make the Muslim the victim, the US the Great Satan. Yeah right. Of course it's only a very small part of the propaganda countries like Saudi Arabia feed to their helpless subjects. |
|
|
|
guns are made for only one purpose and that purpose is to kill either human or animal.if we want to make our world peaceful again we should ban guns.
^ Criminal safety propagandist BULLSHIT. If they were, then all GSWs would be instantly fatal with or without advanced medical care. Instead, most are survivable, and in a lot of cases, not requiring any advanced medical care at all! Peaceful for only violent criminals, who require the most effective tool for self-defense, that equalizes the weakest innocent in society to the strongest evil, to be banned for their job safety! |
|
|
|
....I think what the user trying to say is..
He doesn't hate muslim people because he know they are victim too, they'd been indoctrinated with this teaching since they were a child. That's why the ridiculous claim became truth for them as they grow. You can't blame them, the one who teach them this religion is a victim(their parents) too.
So, it's a sort of child abuse.
Oh, now that's just brilliant. You don't hate them because they are victims. And the ones that teach them are victims. And let's have a whole morality and ethics where everyone is a victim. Then let's have victims beheading people, wearing suicide vests and bombing airlines. But they are all victims. LOL.... So what do you think a child being forcely indoctrinated with this kind of teaching without their consent and with little understanding with life. Child is very vulnerable ridiculous information, they will believe all things they hear and what older people will say. Aren't they a victim? They will put all the nonsense in your head, from the day you were born 'til the last air you breathe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y201QzDdzbgSo the guy that shoots the doc that delivers his wife's baby is a VICTIM. Man, you got the cart before the horse there. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
