Rossputin
10/27/07
10/27/07
A lunatic of the right surfaces
In response to a piece I had written about some local Colorado politics, a person named "Dave" who seems to have an obsession with 9/11 conspiracy theories had the nerve to call me and leave two rambling, slightly insane messages talking about how the Twin Towers must already have been damaged (i.e. by government action conspiring with the attackers) in order for them to have come down so fast. In his second message, he must have held his phone up to a recording of President Bush discussing his seeing the attacks on video. "Dave" then said that a camera pointing at the WTC before the attacks is proof that Bush knew the attacks were coming.
Most politically insane people I have met have been leftists. "Dave" seems to actually be concerned about constitutional government, liberty, and other principles that I value.
Yet he is still insane. In a way, he gave me the definition of his insanity: In the first voice mail, he asked me "Ross, why do you refuse to rule out the impossible?"
Earth to Dave: Sorry to say, but that's pretty much how I live my life. If I didn't rule out the impossible, life would be even harder than it is now...as I presume it is for you who seems to be making at least a hobby out of trying to rationalize the impossible and the ridiculous.
As mentioned before, Dave, debating you is a bad use of my time. Let me just ask you one rhetorical question: If a cannon was shot from fairly close range at a door, or even at a series of doors, and the speed of the cannonball was then measured after it had gone through the doors, do you think the cannonball would be going substantially slower than if it hadn't hit anything? No, because the momentum of that cannonball is massive compared to the (stationary) momentum of the door(s). Your arguments about why the towers couldn't have fallen that fast are, as I've said before, just silly. The heat from the fires weakened steel floor supports and other structural elements (it didn't need to be hot enough to melt steel, just to make it somewhat malleable). And once the collapse got through the first several weakened floors, the entire mass was then falling at such a speed that nothing would have stopped it or even slowed it noticeably.
Dave, it is beyond unacceptable for you to call me to ramble on with your 9/11 lunacy. Go believe what you want to believe. I don't give a damn. Leave me out of your fantasy world. Do not even think about calling me again. And please stay on your medication.
[Note to Readers: The first comment to this article, made by Mike R, is a must-read.]
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
5 comments
# Mike R. 
on 10/27/07 at 15:56
on 10/27/07 at 15:56
"Dave's not here man".
Perhaps a simple suggestion for your acquaintance, Dave, is in order:
See Newton regarding the laws of motion.
I realize that Mr. Newton is a bit dated and that high school is a long way behind most of us but it never hurts to review the basics.
1. An object at rest will remain at rest unless a non-zero force is exerted on it AND an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless a non-zero force acts on it. (This bit gets a little murky with Einstein's work on the curvature of spacetime but we'll leave that out for the moment.)
2.Force causes an object to accelerate, hence a=F/m.
Where a= acceleration F=force and m=mass (inertia).
In this case gravity is our force and the mass is actually increasing with time as we watch our reaction unfold (the building's collapse) thereby increasing the value of F (force) on the lower sections of the building.
To observe the effect of gravitational acceleration on the quantity (F) I suggest Dave first places a brick on his head and notes the downward force he feels as gravity acts on the mass and then try dropping said brick on his head from the maximum height that his arm's extension will allow. (Please note the characteristic dent it makes in the cranium)
This brings us to law #3
When a force is applied to an object an equal an opposite force arises.
This is where Dave may get confused because he assumes the reactive force of the building against gravity was sufficient before the planes and flames and so it remains so afterward. However, Dave is of course in error in this assumption.
To illustrate let's return to our experiment but this time let's pre-soften and distort the arch-like load-distributing shape of Dave's cranium with a mallet. Now when Dave releases the brick from above his head the load is born by a flattened surface which delivers the accumulated energy of the falling brick directly into his cranial cavity were the brick crashes through to the next intact intervening structure, his brain pan.
If we were to add enough accumulating, accelerating mass over time in this reaction (Dave's brain mass doubtfully gives us enough reactive mass to bother doing the calculation)it would crash right through the structure of his body (and here is the tricky part) IN A STRAIGHT LINE OPPOSITE THE DIRECTION OF FORCE UNLESS ACTED ON BY ANOTHER FORCE!!
I hope this has been illustrative.
Perhaps a simple suggestion for your acquaintance, Dave, is in order:
See Newton regarding the laws of motion.
I realize that Mr. Newton is a bit dated and that high school is a long way behind most of us but it never hurts to review the basics.
1. An object at rest will remain at rest unless a non-zero force is exerted on it AND an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless a non-zero force acts on it. (This bit gets a little murky with Einstein's work on the curvature of spacetime but we'll leave that out for the moment.)
2.Force causes an object to accelerate, hence a=F/m.
Where a= acceleration F=force and m=mass (inertia).
In this case gravity is our force and the mass is actually increasing with time as we watch our reaction unfold (the building's collapse) thereby increasing the value of F (force) on the lower sections of the building.
To observe the effect of gravitational acceleration on the quantity (F) I suggest Dave first places a brick on his head and notes the downward force he feels as gravity acts on the mass and then try dropping said brick on his head from the maximum height that his arm's extension will allow. (Please note the characteristic dent it makes in the cranium)
This brings us to law #3
When a force is applied to an object an equal an opposite force arises.
This is where Dave may get confused because he assumes the reactive force of the building against gravity was sufficient before the planes and flames and so it remains so afterward. However, Dave is of course in error in this assumption.
To illustrate let's return to our experiment but this time let's pre-soften and distort the arch-like load-distributing shape of Dave's cranium with a mallet. Now when Dave releases the brick from above his head the load is born by a flattened surface which delivers the accumulated energy of the falling brick directly into his cranial cavity were the brick crashes through to the next intact intervening structure, his brain pan.
If we were to add enough accumulating, accelerating mass over time in this reaction (Dave's brain mass doubtfully gives us enough reactive mass to bother doing the calculation)it would crash right through the structure of his body (and here is the tricky part) IN A STRAIGHT LINE OPPOSITE THE DIRECTION OF FORCE UNLESS ACTED ON BY ANOTHER FORCE!!
I hope this has been illustrative.
Dear big-lie-hugging easily-amused judgemental fools and morons:
You cannot run through a closed door as fast as you can run through an open one.
F = m * a
The impact one feels when trying to run through a closed door is the force proportional to the (negative) acceleration when one comes in contact with the door. That negative acceleration is a slowing.
So when stopwatches put to videos of the so-called collapses (...should've been able to use a sundial to time any such 'collapses' through the path of [supposed] maximum resistance!) reveals a huge lack of significant slowing, that indicates a lack of deceleration, which reveals a lack of impact force, which reveals that the towers fell because they were being disintegrated, not vice versa. Ditto WTC building 7, that 47-story skyscraper which also fell, hours later, in within 1 second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum! (some morons desperately do not [in this case, want to] understand the difference between correlation and causation)
http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
IOW: anyone who understands what makes a parachute work knows that gravity cannot drive a destructive collapse downward, through massive, [supposedly] undamaged lower support structures, in anywhere near the same amount of time as it takes to fall that far through air. (Only morons who foolishly and arrogantly publicly laugh at those who understand and espouse the science of Galileo and Newton would voluntarily use parachutes if that meant hitting the ground at 90 mph instead of 100 -- a form of Darwinism I'm all for.)
If that's too simple for you
'geniuses', try the more advanced info (physics dot-connecting) at http://911u.org/Physics/ (do you know how to start fires which cannot be put out, despite constant dousing with water, for 99 days?)
Ross: you remain too busy clinging too tightly to the impossible lies to be able to recognize them as such. You've been told whom it's OK to hate for 9/11 -- no thinking/skepticism required -- and that remains enough for you(r ilk).
I once believed what you still believe, but then I got better. Regarding 9/11, you don't know or understand anything that I don't, Ross. Au contraire: I've thought my way out of the paper bags that are the impossible, hateful lies of 9/11. You still haven't.
Get well soon, Ross. Last intellectual to think his way out of the paper bags that are the lies of 9/11 is a rotten egg!
You cannot run through a closed door as fast as you can run through an open one.
F = m * a
The impact one feels when trying to run through a closed door is the force proportional to the (negative) acceleration when one comes in contact with the door. That negative acceleration is a slowing.
So when stopwatches put to videos of the so-called collapses (...should've been able to use a sundial to time any such 'collapses' through the path of [supposed] maximum resistance!) reveals a huge lack of significant slowing, that indicates a lack of deceleration, which reveals a lack of impact force, which reveals that the towers fell because they were being disintegrated, not vice versa. Ditto WTC building 7, that 47-story skyscraper which also fell, hours later, in within 1 second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum! (some morons desperately do not [in this case, want to] understand the difference between correlation and causation)
http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
IOW: anyone who understands what makes a parachute work knows that gravity cannot drive a destructive collapse downward, through massive, [supposedly] undamaged lower support structures, in anywhere near the same amount of time as it takes to fall that far through air. (Only morons who foolishly and arrogantly publicly laugh at those who understand and espouse the science of Galileo and Newton would voluntarily use parachutes if that meant hitting the ground at 90 mph instead of 100 -- a form of Darwinism I'm all for.)
If that's too simple for you
'geniuses', try the more advanced info (physics dot-connecting) at http://911u.org/Physics/ (do you know how to start fires which cannot be put out, despite constant dousing with water, for 99 days?)
Ross: you remain too busy clinging too tightly to the impossible lies to be able to recognize them as such. You've been told whom it's OK to hate for 9/11 -- no thinking/skepticism required -- and that remains enough for you(r ilk).
I once believed what you still believe, but then I got better. Regarding 9/11, you don't know or understand anything that I don't, Ross. Au contraire: I've thought my way out of the paper bags that are the impossible, hateful lies of 9/11. You still haven't.
Get well soon, Ross. Last intellectual to think his way out of the paper bags that are the lies of 9/11 is a rotten egg!
# Mike R. on 11/02/07 at 10:46
on 11/02/07 at 10:46
Just a quick couple of numbers for 911 student to ponder, then I'm through arguing nonsense with the disturbed.
the force of the planes striking the towers in joules
1.9x10 to the ninth j (both planes)
The force of the almost fully fueled planes exploding
6.9x10 to the tenth j (both planes)
For comparison a 50 kilogram sack of sand dropped from twelve meters delivers a force of 3000 j. (That would quite literally squash you like a bug.)
Do the math (911 student) then stick it in your central columns and smoke it.
Numbers provided by Frank Moscatelli, physics prof.
the force of the planes striking the towers in joules
1.9x10 to the ninth j (both planes)
The force of the almost fully fueled planes exploding
6.9x10 to the tenth j (both planes)
For comparison a 50 kilogram sack of sand dropped from twelve meters delivers a force of 3000 j. (That would quite literally squash you like a bug.)
Do the math (911 student) then stick it in your central columns and smoke it.
Numbers provided by Frank Moscatelli, physics prof.
# 911student on 11/04/07 at 21:49
You know, if I had a theory (which I don't), and you found something wrong with it (which, since I don't, you can't), that would be truly meaningful.
Now that we've got that straightened out, can we all please stop ignoring all the tangible concrete things unexplained by, and provably wrong with, the government's hateful flimsly unproven disproven discredited theory of the event? (Remember, geniuses: it only takes one counter-example to disprove any theory. If just one apple fell up just once, we'd need a new theory of gravity. If thing after thing is fishy with the govt's wild theory of 9/11, it's time to be reminded of what it says in the Declaration of Independence -- that part about what all experience hath shown...).
FIVE QUICK LIE-BREAKING 9/11 ANOMALIES (above and beyond the magic of falling highly destructively through great/maximum resistance in as little time as if there was no resistance):
1. The (distribution of the) sizes of the (nano!)particles in all that unexplained 'dust' at ""Ground Zero"", combined with all the other pieces of evidence of humongous energy release there, reveal that the annihilation of the towers had unconventional cause(s): http://911u.org/Physics/
2. Bush has not once but twice made loose-lips-sink-ships confession statements indicating prior knowledge of the opening salvo of the 'surprise' 'secret' 'terrorist' attack: http://911blimp.net/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml
(fake-opposition Dems pretend like he didn't make the stmts, but we know better, they're well-documented; also, the U.S. military, DISA, has acknowledged that Bush had the capability to have watched the opening salvo via military channels in the Pres limo that morning, and that DISA would provide the FOIA requested records except they are now under possession/control of the White House...)
3. The only view we have of the Pentagon impact comes from the govt itself. It does not show a 757. We can't be certain what it shows. We can, however, upon quantitative analysis, be 100% certain that whatever it purports to show could not possibly be any 757 that purportedly clipped the fallen lamp poles along the way, because the whatever it purports to show is too small to be a 757 (and thus could not possibly be "Flight 77"). This big-lie-busting anomaly explains why this, the only view of the so-called 'hijacked' 'airliner' at the Pentagon, was excluded from the (wholly misleadingly fraudulent) 9-11 Commission Report: http://911blimp.net/prf_911commRpt.shtml#pentagon
4. Ditto the 1st impact (the one Bush has said he saw on TV 15~16 hrs before the only known video of it ever surfaced). Only one known piece of visual evidence of the event exists (plus the one Bush has repeatedly referred to, but which has never been officially acknowledged), and this one known video does far far far more to call into question the govt's wild claims than it does to support them. And -- another coinkydink? -- it too was omitted from the 9-11 Commission Report (which referred to other scenes from the Naudet video, just not this one and only view of the 1st impact, which the govt had never mentioned, much less enhanced -- please note how a dropped pass in a pre-season football game gets more replay scrutiny than did the opening salvo of this global war against shadowy enemies which is said will last for generations): http://911blimp.net/vid_Naudet.shtml
Not only does the aircraft not resemble a 767, but the well-defined burst of incredibly-bright light which comes and goes in just a handful of milliseconds -- or less -- immediately preceding the intersection of the aircraft with the wall before any other damage had occurred, remains unaddressed and thus unexplained. (And that muted but similarly-timed and similarly-placed and similarly-brief spot of light which accompanied the aerial collision with the 2nd tower is probably just another coinkydink, right?)
5. For those of you who insist upon still clinging to the ludicrous belief that only [hijacked, of course, nevermind any other possibility] commercial passenger airliners could have made the big-airplane-shaped holes in the towers, enjoy your mental contortions trying to explain away this disregarded video which NBC aired during the noon hour (MDT) on 9/11: http://911blimp.net/vid_WTC1explosions.shtml
It shows simultaneous widespread explosions occurring in the N. Tower at the same instant that the oversized, Hollywood-perfect fireballs erupted from the S. Tower. (oops; good thing for govts that people don't think...)
The only thing I'd rather not be than a conspiracy theorist is a coincidence theorist.
If you authority-revering lip-movers were 1% as critical of the govt's fantastic claims as you remain of those of Us who've seen [through] the holes in the govt's ridiculously horrific claims, it might hasten the day when you finally first loosen your grip on the fantastic (and vice versa):
There is only one conspiracy theory of 9/11 that matters, and that's the govt's wild claims about 9/11 all being caused by boxcutter-wielding hijackers. It's not just false; it's impossibly false. It's disproven. It's discredited. Put a fork in that big lie; it's done (so everyone can stop waiting for a better story to come along before letting go of it already. Which makes more sense: admitting we've all been lied to and we don't know what really happened, or pretending we do know when clearly we don't?).
Now that we've got that straightened out, can we all please stop ignoring all the tangible concrete things unexplained by, and provably wrong with, the government's hateful flimsly unproven disproven discredited theory of the event? (Remember, geniuses: it only takes one counter-example to disprove any theory. If just one apple fell up just once, we'd need a new theory of gravity. If thing after thing is fishy with the govt's wild theory of 9/11, it's time to be reminded of what it says in the Declaration of Independence -- that part about what all experience hath shown...).
FIVE QUICK LIE-BREAKING 9/11 ANOMALIES (above and beyond the magic of falling highly destructively through great/maximum resistance in as little time as if there was no resistance):
1. The (distribution of the) sizes of the (nano!)particles in all that unexplained 'dust' at ""Ground Zero"", combined with all the other pieces of evidence of humongous energy release there, reveal that the annihilation of the towers had unconventional cause(s): http://911u.org/Physics/
2. Bush has not once but twice made loose-lips-sink-ships confession statements indicating prior knowledge of the opening salvo of the 'surprise' 'secret' 'terrorist' attack: http://911blimp.net/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml
(fake-opposition Dems pretend like he didn't make the stmts, but we know better, they're well-documented; also, the U.S. military, DISA, has acknowledged that Bush had the capability to have watched the opening salvo via military channels in the Pres limo that morning, and that DISA would provide the FOIA requested records except they are now under possession/control of the White House...)
3. The only view we have of the Pentagon impact comes from the govt itself. It does not show a 757. We can't be certain what it shows. We can, however, upon quantitative analysis, be 100% certain that whatever it purports to show could not possibly be any 757 that purportedly clipped the fallen lamp poles along the way, because the whatever it purports to show is too small to be a 757 (and thus could not possibly be "Flight 77"). This big-lie-busting anomaly explains why this, the only view of the so-called 'hijacked' 'airliner' at the Pentagon, was excluded from the (wholly misleadingly fraudulent) 9-11 Commission Report: http://911blimp.net/prf_911commRpt.shtml#pentagon
4. Ditto the 1st impact (the one Bush has said he saw on TV 15~16 hrs before the only known video of it ever surfaced). Only one known piece of visual evidence of the event exists (plus the one Bush has repeatedly referred to, but which has never been officially acknowledged), and this one known video does far far far more to call into question the govt's wild claims than it does to support them. And -- another coinkydink? -- it too was omitted from the 9-11 Commission Report (which referred to other scenes from the Naudet video, just not this one and only view of the 1st impact, which the govt had never mentioned, much less enhanced -- please note how a dropped pass in a pre-season football game gets more replay scrutiny than did the opening salvo of this global war against shadowy enemies which is said will last for generations): http://911blimp.net/vid_Naudet.shtml
Not only does the aircraft not resemble a 767, but the well-defined burst of incredibly-bright light which comes and goes in just a handful of milliseconds -- or less -- immediately preceding the intersection of the aircraft with the wall before any other damage had occurred, remains unaddressed and thus unexplained. (And that muted but similarly-timed and similarly-placed and similarly-brief spot of light which accompanied the aerial collision with the 2nd tower is probably just another coinkydink, right?)
5. For those of you who insist upon still clinging to the ludicrous belief that only [hijacked, of course, nevermind any other possibility] commercial passenger airliners could have made the big-airplane-shaped holes in the towers, enjoy your mental contortions trying to explain away this disregarded video which NBC aired during the noon hour (MDT) on 9/11: http://911blimp.net/vid_WTC1explosions.shtml
It shows simultaneous widespread explosions occurring in the N. Tower at the same instant that the oversized, Hollywood-perfect fireballs erupted from the S. Tower. (oops; good thing for govts that people don't think...)
The only thing I'd rather not be than a conspiracy theorist is a coincidence theorist.
If you authority-revering lip-movers were 1% as critical of the govt's fantastic claims as you remain of those of Us who've seen [through] the holes in the govt's ridiculously horrific claims, it might hasten the day when you finally first loosen your grip on the fantastic (and vice versa):
There is only one conspiracy theory of 9/11 that matters, and that's the govt's wild claims about 9/11 all being caused by boxcutter-wielding hijackers. It's not just false; it's impossibly false. It's disproven. It's discredited. Put a fork in that big lie; it's done (so everyone can stop waiting for a better story to come along before letting go of it already. Which makes more sense: admitting we've all been lied to and we don't know what really happened, or pretending we do know when clearly we don't?).
"Dave":
I published your last comment out of habit, but I didn't read it. As I have said before, this debate with you is a bad use of my time.
I published your last comment out of habit, but I didn't read it. As I have said before, this debate with you is a bad use of my time.
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
