http://youtube.com/watch?v=qv4PtC-PicU <-----Awesome!
Quick synopsis:
Verint systems is responsible for the security and surveillance of the Montréal metro. They were also responsible for the security and surveillance of the subway stations at which the London 7/7 bombings took place. Even if you completely ignore ANY kind of conspiracy theory (whether it's based in speculation or fact), how can it be said that this company is a the best choice for protecting Canadian commuters?
For more, extensive information, please refer to this solid investigative journalist linked to below.
Really interesting stuff here.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kClrUTT79ws
Moved to Discussion -Erik
Possibility of next false flag terror attack: Montréal.
Possibility of next false flag terror attack: Montréal.
- Kevin R.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
Oh please. Don't tell you buy any of this rubbish Kevin?
How can you possibly blame the security company for the 7/7 bombings? How could they possibly have stopped it? If they had security checks and searched people, the bombers would have blown up the crowds of people waiting to get in for the same effect.
There are so many real and serious problems in the world. It's terrible that people waste their time inventing new ones. These videos, like all the other conspiracy videos, are a product of people forming opinions without evidence. They should be dismissed in their entirety unless they can produce legitimate primary sources for their claims. We've seen with movies like "The Zeitgeist" and "Loose Change" that these conspiracy theorists actually just make things up from thin air, and then present it as if it's an absolute and undeniable fact (for example the claim that the World Trade Centre buildings collapsed in the same way as a controlled demolition - absolutely false, even told people to go look at videos of controlled demolitions themselves knowing that the majority of people would not go that far, did not attempt to actually provide any evidence of this claim, and obviously could not have, as it's wrong).
It's "really interesting" so long as you don't attempt to research the claims from verifiable sources.
How can you possibly blame the security company for the 7/7 bombings? How could they possibly have stopped it? If they had security checks and searched people, the bombers would have blown up the crowds of people waiting to get in for the same effect.
There are so many real and serious problems in the world. It's terrible that people waste their time inventing new ones. These videos, like all the other conspiracy videos, are a product of people forming opinions without evidence. They should be dismissed in their entirety unless they can produce legitimate primary sources for their claims. We've seen with movies like "The Zeitgeist" and "Loose Change" that these conspiracy theorists actually just make things up from thin air, and then present it as if it's an absolute and undeniable fact (for example the claim that the World Trade Centre buildings collapsed in the same way as a controlled demolition - absolutely false, even told people to go look at videos of controlled demolitions themselves knowing that the majority of people would not go that far, did not attempt to actually provide any evidence of this claim, and obviously could not have, as it's wrong).
It's "really interesting" so long as you don't attempt to research the claims from verifiable sources.
Hey so I'm watching through those extra videos and I had a few quick points.
1. Large international security companies always have links to government security agencies because they employ people with experience.
2. Claiming that Israel was "forewarned" about the 9/11 attacks is completely contradicted by the evidence which shows that despite claims from anti-Semite racists, about 270 to 400 Jews died in the attacks. This is consistent with the percentage of Jews in the building on a normal day. There is no actual evidence that supports this claim.
3. Many quotes in newspapers and media were not actually said by the person being quoted, but instead come from press releases written by somebody else. For example a few days ago I wrote a press release for an upcoming protest and I made up quotes for 3 people. Those people obviously will sign off on the press release before it is sent out but if they can't remember the exact details of their press release that's not a sign of a conspiracy theory. Top politicians who are very busy may not even read the press release but would have a staff member sign off for them. Writing press releases is not something that needs to be done by the person being quoted and that person is quoted rather than the author of the press release because they'll be more involved in the actual event. For example the people I quoted are 2 of the organisers of the protest and one of the speakers. I won't even be at the protest so it would be pointless putting my name to the quotes. News reports and company websites are not primary sources and they very often make mistakes or involve propaganda.
1. Large international security companies always have links to government security agencies because they employ people with experience.
2. Claiming that Israel was "forewarned" about the 9/11 attacks is completely contradicted by the evidence which shows that despite claims from anti-Semite racists, about 270 to 400 Jews died in the attacks. This is consistent with the percentage of Jews in the building on a normal day. There is no actual evidence that supports this claim.
3. Many quotes in newspapers and media were not actually said by the person being quoted, but instead come from press releases written by somebody else. For example a few days ago I wrote a press release for an upcoming protest and I made up quotes for 3 people. Those people obviously will sign off on the press release before it is sent out but if they can't remember the exact details of their press release that's not a sign of a conspiracy theory. Top politicians who are very busy may not even read the press release but would have a staff member sign off for them. Writing press releases is not something that needs to be done by the person being quoted and that person is quoted rather than the author of the press release because they'll be more involved in the actual event. For example the people I quoted are 2 of the organisers of the protest and one of the speakers. I won't even be at the protest so it would be pointless putting my name to the quotes. News reports and company websites are not primary sources and they very often make mistakes or involve propaganda.
Whether you buy into it or not, there are a lot of kinda interesting ties at Verint. It's got a shady past that stretches beyond just the possible conspiracy behind 7/7.
I was never suggesting that the 7/7 bombings could have been prevented by the security company. Well, I suppose I didn't expressly say the contrary...but anyway, the cameras were apparently "non-operational" the day of the attacks in London. Much like the cameras at the Pentagon, very little if any footage has been released to the public, and there are multiple contradictions in the official story...Kinda bizarre.
I'm a lot more well-read on the 9/11 truth movement than I am the 7/7 bombings, but apparently the train route the bombers are alleged to have originally boarded was cancelled that day. It was cancelled I guess? I mean, there's different sources saying different things...and the cameras could easily set these questions to rest (just like at the Pentagon)...but they pretty much haven't made any effort.
Jer, you should avoid just saying "CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS LOL" and check out http://www.ae911truth.org. It's absolutely the most credible site I've seen as far as commentary on the *science* behind 9/11. There's a presentation video done at the University in Winnipeg, and the presenter basically doesn't rely on speculation at all. He goes over all the symptoms of controlled demolition (implosion vs. explosion) and then looks at each tower separately. Building 1, 2, and 7. I mean, if you want to deny the laws of physics...cool, I guess...but I don't know what other kind of evidence you might be looking for.
Here's the video if you don't care to find it yourself.
edit: I agree with point two. As with most videos of this nature, I tend to go "Hmmm...well okay, but I disagree" with some of the information presented. That's the thing with Loosechange...there's a LOT of holes in the film, but regardless, it still encouraged people to question the official story.
I agree with point one to an extent...I'll have to rewatch, there's one name in there that made me go Whoa!, but I can't recall who it was. Point three is also valid, but I wasn't aware of the the things you'd mentioned about press releases. At the same time, while the quotes can't be immediately verified to be valid, I'm not sure it's fair to assume that the quotes are INvalid either.
I was never suggesting that the 7/7 bombings could have been prevented by the security company. Well, I suppose I didn't expressly say the contrary...but anyway, the cameras were apparently "non-operational" the day of the attacks in London. Much like the cameras at the Pentagon, very little if any footage has been released to the public, and there are multiple contradictions in the official story...Kinda bizarre.
I'm a lot more well-read on the 9/11 truth movement than I am the 7/7 bombings, but apparently the train route the bombers are alleged to have originally boarded was cancelled that day. It was cancelled I guess? I mean, there's different sources saying different things...and the cameras could easily set these questions to rest (just like at the Pentagon)...but they pretty much haven't made any effort.
Jer, you should avoid just saying "CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS LOL" and check out http://www.ae911truth.org. It's absolutely the most credible site I've seen as far as commentary on the *science* behind 9/11. There's a presentation video done at the University in Winnipeg, and the presenter basically doesn't rely on speculation at all. He goes over all the symptoms of controlled demolition (implosion vs. explosion) and then looks at each tower separately. Building 1, 2, and 7. I mean, if you want to deny the laws of physics...cool, I guess...but I don't know what other kind of evidence you might be looking for.
Here's the video if you don't care to find it yourself.
edit: I agree with point two. As with most videos of this nature, I tend to go "Hmmm...well okay, but I disagree" with some of the information presented. That's the thing with Loosechange...there's a LOT of holes in the film, but regardless, it still encouraged people to question the official story.
I agree with point one to an extent...I'll have to rewatch, there's one name in there that made me go Whoa!, but I can't recall who it was. Point three is also valid, but I wasn't aware of the the things you'd mentioned about press releases. At the same time, while the quotes can't be immediately verified to be valid, I'm not sure it's fair to assume that the quotes are INvalid either.
- Kevin R.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
The IFPA was founded by Steve Goldberg. Steve Goldberg developed software for the US military.qphox wrote:Whether you buy into it or not, there are a lot of kinda interesting ties at Verint. It's got a shady past that stretches beyond just the possible conspiracy behind 7/7.
Jeremy O'Wheel served on the board of directors for the IFPA. For 5 years Jeremy was coached in touch football by John Dowling, the current state secretary of the Labor Party. John Dowling was also political advisor to Bryan Green until Mr Green faced criminal charges for corruption (and was acquitted due to two hung juries). Jeremy O'Wheel was also taught history in 2002 by Guy Nicholson, who was also an advisor to Bryan Green and also faced criminal charges for corruption over the same issue.
Jeremy O'Wheel also works for The Wilderness Society, an organisation that has been labelled as "terrorists" by some people.
Therefore the IFPA has links to the US Military, alleged corruption in politics and an alleged terrorist organisation.
What's more bizarre is all the reports about what occurs in the security footage on the internet, like this report.I was never suggesting that the 7/7 bombings could have been prevented by the security company. Well, I suppose I didn't expressly say the contrary...but anyway, the cameras were apparently "non-operational" the day of the attacks in London. Much like the cameras at the Pentagon, very little if any footage has been released to the public, and there are multiple contradictions in the official story...Kinda bizarre.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-Ne ... 2851314707
Of course this contradicts your claim that the cameras were "non-operational," it contradicts the claims made in the video that they were "non-operational" and it contradicts the claims made in the video that the authorities have refused to release the footage of the bombers boarding the trains.CCTV cameras at Liverpool Street capture commuters hurrying on to the train, where Tanweer is already waiting, as it pulls in to the platform.
Soon the busy platform is empty and the train pulls out of the station but just 40 seconds later a flash is seen in the tunnel.
Can you provide a source that is not making any claims of a conspiracy that backs up the claim that the train route was cancelled? Does the fact that there is security camera footage of the bombing (indeed it's been played on Australian television) set the question at rest now?I'm a lot more well-read on the 9/11 truth movement than I am the 7/7 bombings, but apparently the train route the bombers are alleged to have originally boarded was cancelled that day. It was cancelled I guess? I mean, there's different sources saying different things...and the cameras could easily set these questions to rest (just like at the Pentagon)...but they pretty much haven't made any effort.
Actually I'm now more convinced that saying "CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS LOL" is the rational and most accurate response. I'll comment on your video after I've watched it, but it's ridiculous to state that "I mean, if you want to deny the laws of physics...cool, I guess...but I don't know what other kind of evidence you might be looking for." There are numerous efforts of physicists (not architects) to discredit the "controlled demolition theory." Here is one;Jer, you should avoid just saying "CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS LOL" and check out http://www.ae911truth.org. It's absolutely the most credible site I've seen as far as commentary on the *science* behind 9/11. There's a presentation video done at the University in Winnipeg, and the presenter basically doesn't rely on speculation at all. He goes over all the symptoms of controlled demolition (implosion vs. explosion) and then looks at each tower separately. Building 1, 2, and 7. I mean, if you want to deny the laws of physics...cool, I guess...but I don't know what other kind of evidence you might be looking for.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 27842.html
By real evidence I mean evidence that comes from a source that is an authority on the issue that are giving the evidence on, and are the direct source of the evidence.
Sure, but actually question it. Don't accept the word of people claiming some kind of conspiracy. Find primary sources, not anecdotes and people's opinions.edit: I agree with point two. As with most videos of this nature, I tend to go "Hmmm...well okay, but I disagree" with some of the information presented. That's the thing with Loosechange...there's a LOT of holes in the film, but regardless, it still encouraged people to question the official story.
It doesn't matter if they're valid or not. How does not remembering the name of a company suggest any kind of conspiracy or anything questionable about the company or the deal? What can possibly motivate the councillor to pretend not to remember?I agree with point one to an extent...I'll have to rewatch, there's one name in there that made me go Whoa!, but I can't recall who it was. Point three is also valid, but I wasn't aware of the the things you'd mentioned about press releases. At the same time, while the quotes can't be immediately verified to be valid, I'm not sure it's fair to assume that the quotes are INvalid either.
Ok I've watched like 15 minutes of that new video and it's rubbish. I'm not wasting my time anymore. It's the same theories from Loose Change and they're wrong.
He starts off with the meaningless statistics of some sample population polls that say that a significant percentage of Americans don't believe the official story. Maybe that's true, it's also meaningless. 22% of Americans are apparently sure that Jesus will return to Earth in the next 50 years. Another 22% think it's probably that he will. That's 44% that think there is at least a good chance that Jesus will return in the next 50 years. I don't think we can put much weight on the factual nature of the opinions of the general American population (or possibly the accuracy of polling Americans).
He talks about the the apparent controlled demolition of building 7. Here's an easy question. What motive can you come up with for any group (terrorist, government, or whatever) to demolish that building? What would have happened if it were not demolished but left standing? Would the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not have occurred? Would the PATRIOT act not been passed? Why was that building specifically demolished? Just for fun?
I skipped ahead a little and heard him talking about the melting temperature of steel. This claim has been absolutely debunked by physicists and engineers everywhere. The popular mechanics article covers it, as does, interestingly, my physics text book from year 12. Steel loses most of it's structural strength at much lower temperatures than it's melting temperature. A 5 second google search can tell you this.
Making claims like "it must have been a demolition because steel doesn't melt at the temperatures of the fire" is not evidence. Neither is it speculation. Like the claim about the cameras being "non-operational" at the London bombings, it's just false. These people are either deliberately lying or they just don't know what they're talking about. Either way, it's incredible that you've read and watched so much on the 9/11 truth movement and you've never checked up on their claims for yourself.
Oh yeah and last year a building in the middle of Hobart collapsed. Guess why? It was fire. World Trade Centres; first buildings in the world to collapse because of fire (according to an architect). Hobart Myer building, second event where a building collapses because of fire. Clearly another conspiracy. Oh yeah, and Jeremy O'Wheel knows 2 people who worked there. The IFPA is linked to more dubious events.
He starts off with the meaningless statistics of some sample population polls that say that a significant percentage of Americans don't believe the official story. Maybe that's true, it's also meaningless. 22% of Americans are apparently sure that Jesus will return to Earth in the next 50 years. Another 22% think it's probably that he will. That's 44% that think there is at least a good chance that Jesus will return in the next 50 years. I don't think we can put much weight on the factual nature of the opinions of the general American population (or possibly the accuracy of polling Americans).
He talks about the the apparent controlled demolition of building 7. Here's an easy question. What motive can you come up with for any group (terrorist, government, or whatever) to demolish that building? What would have happened if it were not demolished but left standing? Would the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not have occurred? Would the PATRIOT act not been passed? Why was that building specifically demolished? Just for fun?
I skipped ahead a little and heard him talking about the melting temperature of steel. This claim has been absolutely debunked by physicists and engineers everywhere. The popular mechanics article covers it, as does, interestingly, my physics text book from year 12. Steel loses most of it's structural strength at much lower temperatures than it's melting temperature. A 5 second google search can tell you this.
Making claims like "it must have been a demolition because steel doesn't melt at the temperatures of the fire" is not evidence. Neither is it speculation. Like the claim about the cameras being "non-operational" at the London bombings, it's just false. These people are either deliberately lying or they just don't know what they're talking about. Either way, it's incredible that you've read and watched so much on the 9/11 truth movement and you've never checked up on their claims for yourself.
Oh yeah and last year a building in the middle of Hobart collapsed. Guess why? It was fire. World Trade Centres; first buildings in the world to collapse because of fire (according to an architect). Hobart Myer building, second event where a building collapses because of fire. Clearly another conspiracy. Oh yeah, and Jeremy O'Wheel knows 2 people who worked there. The IFPA is linked to more dubious events.
I don't have a ton of time right now, but I have glanced over that debunking site before...
The one that gets to me right away is their commentary on Building 7. The site states as fact that the building collapsed due to an unusual design that placed an immense amount of weight on a number of columns, and removing even one would trigger a progression of collapse. But...owner/Leaseholder Larry Silverstein is on video saying that he had the building demolished after speaking to the chief of the fire department. Was he lying?
I'll find a video of it later.
The one that gets to me right away is their commentary on Building 7. The site states as fact that the building collapsed due to an unusual design that placed an immense amount of weight on a number of columns, and removing even one would trigger a progression of collapse. But...owner/Leaseholder Larry Silverstein is on video saying that he had the building demolished after speaking to the chief of the fire department. Was he lying?
I'll find a video of it later.
- Kevin R.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
I think the big question regarding WT 7 is why? Can you give me the most conceivable reasons of why it would have been control demolished and what they gained from doing this?
The argument that various companies or government organisations gained from 9/11 as a whole is an understandable theory. The claims that they flew a missile into the Pentagon and then claimed it was a plane, made that plane disappear, faked another crash in Pennsylvania and made that plane disappear and control demolished the WT 7 building, which most people don't even know collapsed all seem like completely random acts with no possible benefit. If they can fly 2 planes into buildings and make 2 more disappear, why wouldn't they have actually crashed those two planes that disappeared?
When we start believing those kinds of theories we should also start looking out for the lizard people.
The argument that various companies or government organisations gained from 9/11 as a whole is an understandable theory. The claims that they flew a missile into the Pentagon and then claimed it was a plane, made that plane disappear, faked another crash in Pennsylvania and made that plane disappear and control demolished the WT 7 building, which most people don't even know collapsed all seem like completely random acts with no possible benefit. If they can fly 2 planes into buildings and make 2 more disappear, why wouldn't they have actually crashed those two planes that disappeared?
When we start believing those kinds of theories we should also start looking out for the lizard people.
...and more importantly, the Lizard King.
Well, I'm not one to say, "Hey guys. This is what happened. For real." because I really don't know for sure. But it's still a matter of looking at these contradictions, and knowing that both accounts of reality can't be accurate, so who is incorrect and/or lying? It's not too difficult to see that the US is fighting overseas right now thanks to a massive and rapid military buildup catalyzed by 9/11....and they're there without ever really thoroughly investigating what happened in the first place.
Silverstein finally made a statement about what he meant when he said "pull it" on PBS, (allegedly referring to demolishing Building 7). Apparently by "it" he meant the contingent of firefighters in the building, and by "pull" he meant withdraw...
...except there were no firefighters in that building. Apparently for several hours.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a profit of about $500 million.
I ctrl+v'd that last part, and I'm going to look into it for further proof.
Well, I'm not one to say, "Hey guys. This is what happened. For real." because I really don't know for sure. But it's still a matter of looking at these contradictions, and knowing that both accounts of reality can't be accurate, so who is incorrect and/or lying? It's not too difficult to see that the US is fighting overseas right now thanks to a massive and rapid military buildup catalyzed by 9/11....and they're there without ever really thoroughly investigating what happened in the first place.
Silverstein finally made a statement about what he meant when he said "pull it" on PBS, (allegedly referring to demolishing Building 7). Apparently by "it" he meant the contingent of firefighters in the building, and by "pull" he meant withdraw...
...except there were no firefighters in that building. Apparently for several hours.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a profit of about $500 million.
I ctrl+v'd that last part, and I'm going to look into it for further proof.
- Kevin R.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
I'm sorry but I've missed the part where you say exactly when it was that Silverstein told the fire chief to "pull the building" or whatever words he used. Presumably you don't think that he made the decision while being interviewed on TV? Is it possible he made the decision at 10.30, when the fire chief did pull the fire fighters out? I'd love to see an independent primary source indicating exactly when he made that decision.
Of course this is missing the main issue.
You suggest that the company that owned the WT7 building made a $500 million profit. Again I'd love to see some independent primary sources of this, but lets assume that it's true. Does this supposed to suggest that Silverstein control demolished WT1 and WT2. Had two planes hijacked to fly into those buildings. Launched a missile at the pentagon, faked an aeroplane crashing into. Faked another aeroplane crash and made 2 aeroplanes disappear. All so that he could get away with demolish his own building and reap the profits?
Or is it supposed to suggest that he saw all these things happening and so made a spur of the moment decision on the day to demolish the building?
These people have either been wrong or have lied about countless issues. They make suggestions and theories without providing any evidence of their claims. Watch that last video that you posted again. How many times in it does he actually present real and substantial evidence? How do you know that anything he is saying is actually correct? He uses some things that nobody would deny - such as the fact that the collapse of WT7 looks like the collapse of some controlled demolitions to then make completely unverified claims about how buildings collapse.
Here's a question. If all three of these buildings actually did collapse because of the result of planes and there was no controlled demolition, what would those collapses look like? How many different ways are there for a building like the WT7 building to collapse? Don't give me speculative answers, give actual examples of different ways that buildings of that size have actually collapsed.
Of course this is missing the main issue.
You suggest that the company that owned the WT7 building made a $500 million profit. Again I'd love to see some independent primary sources of this, but lets assume that it's true. Does this supposed to suggest that Silverstein control demolished WT1 and WT2. Had two planes hijacked to fly into those buildings. Launched a missile at the pentagon, faked an aeroplane crashing into. Faked another aeroplane crash and made 2 aeroplanes disappear. All so that he could get away with demolish his own building and reap the profits?
Or is it supposed to suggest that he saw all these things happening and so made a spur of the moment decision on the day to demolish the building?
Well the conspiracy theoriests have claimed that the collapse of WT1 and WT2 was exactly the same as controlled demolitions when actually there has never been a building deliberately collapsed from the top down. They have claimed that the security cameras at the London subway were "non-operational" when they were not. They claimed that the authorities have refused to release footage of the bombers getting on the trains when they actually have. They have claimed that no Jews were killed in the world trade centre attacks, when actually the number of Jews killed was the same percentage as the number of Jews in the community.Well, I'm not one to say, "Hey guys. This is what happened. For real." because I really don't know for sure. But it's still a matter of looking at these contradictions, and knowing that both accounts of reality can't be accurate, so who is incorrect and/or lying?
These people have either been wrong or have lied about countless issues. They make suggestions and theories without providing any evidence of their claims. Watch that last video that you posted again. How many times in it does he actually present real and substantial evidence? How do you know that anything he is saying is actually correct? He uses some things that nobody would deny - such as the fact that the collapse of WT7 looks like the collapse of some controlled demolitions to then make completely unverified claims about how buildings collapse.
Here's a question. If all three of these buildings actually did collapse because of the result of planes and there was no controlled demolition, what would those collapses look like? How many different ways are there for a building like the WT7 building to collapse? Don't give me speculative answers, give actual examples of different ways that buildings of that size have actually collapsed.
Jeremy, I don't see why this becomes such a hot-headed debate with you. You absolutely refuse to understand why someone with perhaps little to no interest in politics would have their interest piqued by a video like this.
You've decided that you're right, regardless of what anyone says. So some videos have holes in them... EVERYTHING has holes in it, otherwise there would be no debate.
If all the info you know is absolutely, irrefutably 100% true, why is there such debate? Why isn't the information presented to public, all at once, instead of by multiple references through this website, that video, etc... ?
You've decided that you're right, regardless of what anyone says. So some videos have holes in them... EVERYTHING has holes in it, otherwise there would be no debate.
If all the info you know is absolutely, irrefutably 100% true, why is there such debate? Why isn't the information presented to public, all at once, instead of by multiple references through this website, that video, etc... ?
Nicholas Laroche
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silve ... ullit.html
Well, I couldn't find an exact time for you Jeremy...but on this site, there is this information:
On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement [on the issue of Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment]:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ...
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
So I guess...in the afternoon?
As far as the idea that there were no firefighters in the building, that's also cited with sources at that page. Have a look if you'd like.
The information here does not directly suggest that Silverstein masterminded 9/11. Simply that he likely had fore-knowledge of it. And if he did, who else did? Could it have been prevented? If so, why was no one reprimanded?
Also, I'll just throw this one out there for fun:
BBC News reports Building 7 to have fallen...a full 26 minutes before it actually happened.
Well, I couldn't find an exact time for you Jeremy...but on this site, there is this information:
On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement [on the issue of Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment]:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ...
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
So I guess...in the afternoon?
As far as the idea that there were no firefighters in the building, that's also cited with sources at that page. Have a look if you'd like.
The information here does not directly suggest that Silverstein masterminded 9/11. Simply that he likely had fore-knowledge of it. And if he did, who else did? Could it have been prevented? If so, why was no one reprimanded?
Also, I'll just throw this one out there for fun:
BBC News reports Building 7 to have fallen...a full 26 minutes before it actually happened.
- Kevin R.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
Nick, I don't see why you're incapable of actually addressing the topic, and so often resort to ad hominem attacks instead.Laroche wrote:Jeremy, I don't see why this becomes such a hot-headed debate with you. You absolutely refuse to understand why someone with perhaps little to no interest in politics would have their interest piqued by a video like this.
You've decided that you're right, regardless of what anyone says. So some videos have holes in them... EVERYTHING has holes in it, otherwise there would be no debate.
If all the info you know is absolutely, irrefutably 100% true, why is there such debate? Why isn't the information presented to public, all at once, instead of by multiple references through this website, that video, etc... ?
Your logic that "there is some kind of debate so there must be some truth to it" is absolute rubbish.
There is a very fringe group of people, mainly white supremacists, and genuine anti-American lefties, who think this is true. The vast majority of people do not. Let's face it, there are people who believe the Stonemasons control the world. People who believe aliens come to earth and abduct people and animals. People who believe in Gods and ghosts and angels and homoeopathy. As I mentioned before, 44% of Americans think that Jesus will return in the next 50 years (it must be 47 years now I think, since that stat is a few years old). The fact that fringe radicals who have little knowledge of politics think that there are no international Muslim terrorists is not surprising. It's a little surprising that somebody as intelligent as Kevin has been caught up in it.
Why is there still debate? Dogmatism. Why do so many people question evolution when it's actually been viewed to occur? Why do so many people think the LHC could "end the world," when they have no knowledge of physics? Why do so many people think that marijuana is harmless when it's been proven to have many different health risks? Why do so many people think that quantum theory can somehow explain free will when uncertainty is really the opposite of any kind of control? Why do so many people question whether climate change is occurring despite the massive amount of evidence and the fact that most scientists studying the issue knew this 15 years ago?
Lots and lots of people have beliefs despite the evidence. We live in a society where opinions are equally valued despite the fact that some opinions are based on evidence and others are not. We live in a world where evidence based reasoning is just viewed as one way of looking at the world and making stuff up that theoretically could be true is another way.
I'm a rationalist. I'm heavily involved in a rationalist political party. I'm studying to be a scientist, which is born from the rationalist movement. When I see people in public trying to push completely irrational opinions I'm going to explain why they're wrong. Obviously this requires some detail of explanation. If you want to call that "hot headed" and suggest that it would be better to "keep an open mind" and believe that "the Jews" are out to get us, sure. I'd rather pursue truth.
That's not evidence. Is this entire conspiracy theory based on trying to pedantically reinterpret people's comments? The information does not suggest that Silverstein had fore-knowledge of the 9/11 attacks at all. It doesn't suggest anything. It's just meaningless recollections of minor details from a chaotic day where it could hardly be expected to remember every tiny detail. Anecdotal evidence is obviously hardly credible at all, and that's all the evidence you can provide.qphox wrote:So I guess...in the afternoon?
As far as the idea that there were no firefighters in the building, that's also cited with sources at that page. Have a look if you'd like.
The information here does not directly suggest that Silverstein masterminded 9/11. Simply that he likely had fore-knowledge of it. And if he did, who else did? Could it have been prevented? If so, why was no one reprimanded?
The BBC report is another example of just bullshit. BBC news is available around the world. The time broadcast with BBC stories is changed to be the time of the region it's being broadcast. For example when I watch BBC news in Australia it gives me the time in Australia. The time in the article you've posted says 21.54. That's 9.54 pm. What evidence do we have that this was broadcast somewhere that is +5, or minus 19 hours on New York time? There's nothing telling us where it was broadcast. It could well be NZ, which fits the right time. Again you're making a massive assumption in order to believe in this conspiracy. I guarantee BBC news was showing the same story around the world. There's no way we can assume to know in which country a particular screenshot was broadcast.
Of course we are again faced with the question of why? Why would somebody tell the BBC that the building had collapsed before it did? Why would the BBC, if they knew it hadn't collapsed yet, prematurely say that it had? The only plausible explanation that is consistent with your conspiracy theory is that one of the conspirators accidentally told them. But if that's the case, why didn't they try to get footage of the event and realise that it had not collapsed, and even do a report apparently in front of the building while it's still standing?
And then there's the question of where the molten metal (seen in videos pouring out of the towers and quoted in several firefighter eyewitness reports...also quoted on video) came from.
The Popular Mechanics clears things up concerning the melting point of steel saying that no, the fires didn't burn hot enough to melt the steel, but it didn't need to. It just eneded to weaken it enough for the building to give way. Okay, granted.
So what's up with the molten metal?
Dust analysis in and around ground zero found metal spheres, largely composed of iron. The fact that they were spheres would indicate that the metal hardened mid-air (thanks to surface tension). Sooo...if there was no explosion, and the puffs of dust you see on video are simply there because of the sudden increased pressure of an entire floor pancaking...I guess that would suggest the molten iron was forced out and propelled into the air as well.
Easy enough to understand.
But...why was there molten iron at all?
The Popular Mechanics clears things up concerning the melting point of steel saying that no, the fires didn't burn hot enough to melt the steel, but it didn't need to. It just eneded to weaken it enough for the building to give way. Okay, granted.
So what's up with the molten metal?
Dust analysis in and around ground zero found metal spheres, largely composed of iron. The fact that they were spheres would indicate that the metal hardened mid-air (thanks to surface tension). Sooo...if there was no explosion, and the puffs of dust you see on video are simply there because of the sudden increased pressure of an entire floor pancaking...I guess that would suggest the molten iron was forced out and propelled into the air as well.
Easy enough to understand.
But...why was there molten iron at all?
- Kevin R.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
At school we once did an experiment where you take iron oxide (rusty iron) and aluminium, turn them into powder and mix them together. Apply a flame (we used a burning magnesium strip, but you could use anything). The aluminium takes the oxygen atoms away from the iron. This releases enormous energy and the iron melts. This is a really dangerous experiment as it is very difficult to contain molten iron, and indeed it escaped our container and burnt through a table (so keep that in mind if you're going to try it at home).
The point is that when you apply energy to fairly stable things, they can react in unexpected ways. We know that there were a lot of different materials in the building. We know that there was an intense fire. It's easily conceivable that other chemicals mixed with the jet fuel and made it burn hotter or that different chemicals reacted in a similar way to the reaction I've mentioned and created molten iron.
The claim about metal spheres is hilarious. What are you suggesting? That molten metal was fired at the building, cooled in the air and then hit it? Why didn't anybody see this happening?
There were clearly enormous levels of air pressure in the building when it collapsed and it's entirely reasonable for things to be expelled from it. Cyclones and tornadoes are caused by air pressure. Have a look at the damage they cause...
The point is that when you apply energy to fairly stable things, they can react in unexpected ways. We know that there were a lot of different materials in the building. We know that there was an intense fire. It's easily conceivable that other chemicals mixed with the jet fuel and made it burn hotter or that different chemicals reacted in a similar way to the reaction I've mentioned and created molten iron.
The claim about metal spheres is hilarious. What are you suggesting? That molten metal was fired at the building, cooled in the air and then hit it? Why didn't anybody see this happening?
There were clearly enormous levels of air pressure in the building when it collapsed and it's entirely reasonable for things to be expelled from it. Cyclones and tornadoes are caused by air pressure. Have a look at the damage they cause...
-
Outsider
- Ayatollah of Rock n' Rollah
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: 21 May 2003 21:30
- Location: Bridgewater, New Jersey
Firefighters saw pools of molten metal all around. Okay. I don't dispute this. Why would they lie about that? But... picture this: you're a firefighter, a cop, an EMT, a bystander, whatever, and you see a pool of molten metal, or streams of molten metal pouring down from somewhere - how do you know its molten STEEL and not some other molten metal with a much lower melting point? There were probably significant quantities of lots of metals in those buildings -- copper in the electrical and phone wires, tin, lead, aluminum in ever can of soda in every vending machine, plus in the planes that hit both buildings, and who knows how many more parts of whatever - desklamps, lighting fixtures, who knows. The pipes that made up the plumbing and sprinkler systems were probably not made of steel. Lots of different metals by the ton in buildings like that. And, in a smoky dusty partly collapsed basement area or wherever the heck those firefighters were, how could they really even be sure that the pools they saw were molten metal at all? Smoky, dusty, dark... how did they actually determine that pools of whatever were not molten plastic, molten glass, whatever?So what's up with the molten metal?
As for the iron in the dust -- it could have been there from the time of the contruction of the buidings. I don't know for sure, but all those iron-workers who put those towers up where probably doing alot of welding. There could have been alot of tiny metal balls left over from several years worth of welding on two gigantic steel towers. Hell, there is a very large number of large steel towers in that neighborhood. There could very well be lots of tiny iron spheres mixed in with the dust of that place all the time... Heck, when did they take those measurements of the dust and its iron-sphere content? There was probably an huge amount of cutting up of steel debris by gas or electric torches during the search-and-rescue and also the eventual clean-up of that disaster sight. If those measurements were taken at that time, the measurements could easily have been "contaminated" by the metal dust being created by those clean-up crews. As I recall, iron-workers from all around the country came to volunteer in the search-and-rescue and the clean-up of that sight for months after 9/11. So, for months an extra large number of iron-workers were cutting up big chunks of debris with super-hot torches, creating new tiny iron spheres as they went. Who knows?
I'm a little confused by the premise of the question, though. That is, the question seems to suggest that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, because the fires were not hot enough to melt steel... But, do controlled demolitions of buildings usually result in melted steel? I mean, when they do a controlled demolition, its usually explosives that blow up the structural support of a building. I don't know that much about it, but, do those kinds of explosives usually result in melted steel? That is to say, if something really melted alot of the steel of those towers, and it wasn't the fires, would the kinds of explosives used to blow up other old office buildings result in the melting of steel that some people reported seeing?
And speaking of controlled demolitions... I watched most of "loose change" again last night (though it was practically a whole different movie since the last time I saw it) because of this little discussion here, and they (and other people) keep going on about how the buildings appear to have fallen due to a controlled demolition. They even show a bunch of controlled demolitions for comparison. And, to me, the collapse of the towers don't really look that much like the controlled demolitions that they show. The main thing is that, in a controlled demolition the whole building always seems to fall at once, starting from the very bottom. I've watched the video of the twin towers going down a bunch of times, and I'm pretty certain each time that those towers begin collapsing right where the planes hit, collapsing from above the "wounds" into the part below the wound, and then bringing the whole thing down. That is, it seems perfectly clear to me that the towers do not begin to fall all as one big piece from the bottom up (like in all the vids of the controlled demos) but really right in the middle (much closer to the top, really, but you know what I mean, not exactly in the middle, but more-or-less in the middle as opposed to the very bottom or the very top), the top quarter or third (approx.) falling into the lower part and thus bringing the lower part down as a result of the top part falling onto it. I mean, every time I see those videos it seems pretty clear that the collapse does not start at the bottom of the builing, which, to me, seems wholely unlike all the videos of controlled demolitions that they or anyone else ever shows.
Ugh... I can't believe I let myself get drawn into this discussion again. Thanks alot, jerks. This is all your fault, Regamy. "Afts" my ass
"The time has come to convert the unbelievers..."
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Yeah the WT1 and WT2 buildings (the big ones) collapse in a manner nothing like a controlled demolition. They collapse from the top down, while all controlled demolitions collapse from the bottom up. If we're going to believe what the person claims in one of Kevin's videos - that it was the only time in the world a building has collapsed because of fire, it was also the only time in the world buildings collapsed top down like that. It would be pretty impressive to carry out such a controlled demolition in a manner that's never been tested.
It's also very unclear what the purpose of collapsing the buildings was. Do you think the US would not have gone to war if the buildings didn't collapse? If 4 planes were crashed and hundreds of people killed; massive disruption etc. That would have been the end of it. Bush would have said. "Nice try guys, but you didn't kill that many of us, we're just going to carry on as normal." Or was it an insurance job like the WT7 building? Cause people who are already in control of the world can't find any other way of getting money than flying planes into their own buildings and getting the insurance...
It's also important to note that although jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, lots of other fuels do. For example another experiment from high school chemistry is carrying out electrolysis of water, capturing the gas (hydrogen and oxygen) and then mixing them together and igniting them. This is effectively the same fuel used for the space shuttle and it burns at about 3000 degrees C - twice as hot as that needed to melt steel. Of course when we did it we only had a very small amount and it was in a very controlled environment, but clearly with lots of chemicals in carpets etc. being exposed to extreme heat, it would be easy to see flammable chain reactions starting that could build up such heat.
It's really really poor logic to claim that because you can't absolutely explain something, it suggests some kind of government cover up.
It's also very unclear what the purpose of collapsing the buildings was. Do you think the US would not have gone to war if the buildings didn't collapse? If 4 planes were crashed and hundreds of people killed; massive disruption etc. That would have been the end of it. Bush would have said. "Nice try guys, but you didn't kill that many of us, we're just going to carry on as normal." Or was it an insurance job like the WT7 building? Cause people who are already in control of the world can't find any other way of getting money than flying planes into their own buildings and getting the insurance...
It's also important to note that although jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, lots of other fuels do. For example another experiment from high school chemistry is carrying out electrolysis of water, capturing the gas (hydrogen and oxygen) and then mixing them together and igniting them. This is effectively the same fuel used for the space shuttle and it burns at about 3000 degrees C - twice as hot as that needed to melt steel. Of course when we did it we only had a very small amount and it was in a very controlled environment, but clearly with lots of chemicals in carpets etc. being exposed to extreme heat, it would be easy to see flammable chain reactions starting that could build up such heat.
It's really really poor logic to claim that because you can't absolutely explain something, it suggests some kind of government cover up.
-
Outsider
- Ayatollah of Rock n' Rollah
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: 21 May 2003 21:30
- Location: Bridgewater, New Jersey
Sorry, Kevin. I'm not going to Prague this year. Its such a big and expensive trip, and since I'd already been there... Lately, I'm largely motivated to visit places that I have never seen before. Last summer I was really hoping that the Poles were going to make a bid for Worlds, since I'd like to see some of Poland. I'd have definitely gone then. Oh well. Still, nothing wrong with the Czech Republic... best beer I've ever had, and probably the best Worlds I've ever been to too.
I'd love to kick and drink with you again sometime Kevin, but it won't be in Prague. Oh, and lately I've been really grooving on the Irish whiskeys (no pun intended there). Its pretty much just like the Scotches, but they have a few little particularities... like the Pure Pot Still varieties, which are (allegedly) unique to Ireland, and its not technically a single malt because its a mix of malted and unmalted barely. I have not yet found it to be as "spicey" as I'd been lead to believe, but I was just sipping on Red Breast pure pot still tonight for the fourth time since I bought this bottle, and it was really hitting the spot this time. Also, I've found the Bushmills 12 year single malt to have a terrific aftertaste. You just have to wait about five or ten seconds and then it hits you...
Anyway, have a good time at worlds, and watch out for the terrorists and the goverment conspirators
I'd love to kick and drink with you again sometime Kevin, but it won't be in Prague. Oh, and lately I've been really grooving on the Irish whiskeys (no pun intended there). Its pretty much just like the Scotches, but they have a few little particularities... like the Pure Pot Still varieties, which are (allegedly) unique to Ireland, and its not technically a single malt because its a mix of malted and unmalted barely. I have not yet found it to be as "spicey" as I'd been lead to believe, but I was just sipping on Red Breast pure pot still tonight for the fourth time since I bought this bottle, and it was really hitting the spot this time. Also, I've found the Bushmills 12 year single malt to have a terrific aftertaste. You just have to wait about five or ten seconds and then it hits you...
Anyway, have a good time at worlds, and watch out for the terrorists and the goverment conspirators
"The time has come to convert the unbelievers..."
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Just to start things off, here's a little quote for you Jeremy, on the topic of Confirmation Bias.
For those unaware: In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.
Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.
Or maybe we should...try to understand through investigation? I've already looked into history...you look at the Reichstag, you look at Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin: these are all proven flase flag operations carried out by their own nations' governments to garner support for military strike. It's not as if this concept is anything NEW.
Now, I've read the debunking websites. It's not as if I'm plagued by the confirmation bias described above...there is some really interesting information written all through the Popular Mechanics, there really is.
But then I turn back to the observable reality that is the twin towers destruction. Here's a few facts. If you really want me to back up every single one and cover them in much more detail Jeremy, I guess I'll do my best in a later post. We've already talked about a few of these, but for now this is just going to serve as a brief overview of the information at hand.
1. Sudden onset of destruction.
2. Destruction occurred at near freefall pace. (this one is probably the hardest for me to accept, when considering the blatantly obvious next point...)
3. Destruction followed path of greatest resistance.
4. 20 ton steel columns ejected laterally up to 500 ft..
5. Blast waves blew out windows in building 400 ft away.
6. 118 first responders report explosions at onset of destruction.
7. Numerous eyewitness reports of flowing molten metal in rubble.
8. Mid-air pulverization of concrete with outward-arching plumes.
9. Rapid expansion and pyroclastic flow of enormous dust clouds.
10. Squibs: explosive ejections 40 stories below the impact zone.
11. Total dismemberment of steel core column structures. (this one kinda makes me second guess the idea that purely air pressure forced the debris out laterally.)
12. 1200 ft diamameter symmetrical debris field.
13. Chemical evidence of thermate on steel and in dust samples.
14. FEMA steel analysis: sulfidation, oxidation & intergranular melting.
15. No precedent for steel frame highrise collapse caused by fire.
I couldn't make this stuff up.
And also, come on, really?
For those unaware: In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.
Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.
In 1897, Leo Tolstoy wrote:I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life.
Also, Leo Tolstoy wrote:The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.
This is an especially bizarre statement. You suggest that since I personally cannot explain absolutely every detail (of course, ignoring the fact that there is ever-compounding evidence towards the idea that the US Government at the very least had advance knowledge of the impending attacks), then I shouldn't entertain the possibility that high-ranking officials within US government agencies may have at the very least committed treason by allowing these events to happen.Jeremy wrote:It's really really poor logic to claim that because you can't absolutely explain something, it suggests some kind of government cover up.
Or maybe we should...try to understand through investigation? I've already looked into history...you look at the Reichstag, you look at Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin: these are all proven flase flag operations carried out by their own nations' governments to garner support for military strike. It's not as if this concept is anything NEW.
Now, I've read the debunking websites. It's not as if I'm plagued by the confirmation bias described above...there is some really interesting information written all through the Popular Mechanics, there really is.
But then I turn back to the observable reality that is the twin towers destruction. Here's a few facts. If you really want me to back up every single one and cover them in much more detail Jeremy, I guess I'll do my best in a later post. We've already talked about a few of these, but for now this is just going to serve as a brief overview of the information at hand.
1. Sudden onset of destruction.
2. Destruction occurred at near freefall pace. (this one is probably the hardest for me to accept, when considering the blatantly obvious next point...)
3. Destruction followed path of greatest resistance.
4. 20 ton steel columns ejected laterally up to 500 ft..
5. Blast waves blew out windows in building 400 ft away.
6. 118 first responders report explosions at onset of destruction.
7. Numerous eyewitness reports of flowing molten metal in rubble.
8. Mid-air pulverization of concrete with outward-arching plumes.
9. Rapid expansion and pyroclastic flow of enormous dust clouds.
10. Squibs: explosive ejections 40 stories below the impact zone.
11. Total dismemberment of steel core column structures. (this one kinda makes me second guess the idea that purely air pressure forced the debris out laterally.)
12. 1200 ft diamameter symmetrical debris field.
13. Chemical evidence of thermate on steel and in dust samples.
14. FEMA steel analysis: sulfidation, oxidation & intergranular melting.
15. No precedent for steel frame highrise collapse caused by fire.
I couldn't make this stuff up.
And also, come on, really?
Did you honestly believe that was anything close to what I was suggesting? I know you enjoy debate, but this is just ridiculous. It really isn't necessary to challenge my ability to think critically by making such erroneous suggestions.Jeremy wrote:The claim about metal spheres is hilarious. What are you suggesting? That molten metal was fired at the building, cooled in the air and then hit it? Why didn't anybody see this happening?
- Kevin R.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.