Replies

Are you employed to spin dissonance or just this determined to spread the disinformation fog supported by staged crap? Physics says therer is so far no explanation which fits what happened to the towers. To so arduously spin for one explanation or another is suspect therefore. And if you want me to shut up and get out of your way just let Jim know I am questioning the 911 conventional explanation.

I had a background in PHYSICS as a college major before I switched to Economics. I tutored in Physics in both high school and College. So, no, I am NOT "employed to spin dissonance or just this determined to spread the disinformation fog supported by staged crap?"

I always follow the facts and the science. . . and these tin-foil hat brigade members are POSTING easily checkable lies, such as the time it took for the towers to fall.

I. TIMED. THEM. MYSELF.

You can do it yourself too.

I don't take anyone's word for anything, especially bloggers selling hot air, advertising, and self-published books.

If you want to think that I'm a tool of the establishment, look up the TWA-800 disaster and you will find me prominently present, including what came to be known as Swordmaker's Timeline based on both active and passive radar return data, which proved that only a missile could have brought down that aircraft and that both the CIA's and the NTSB's cartoons were as phony as thirteen dollar bills. . . which is why I still don't trust James Kalstrom. . . who was involved in that cover up. So don't try painting ME with your BLACK TAR BRUSH! It doesn't stick!

I also did the math on the forward momentum of TWA-800 which proved it could NOT HAVE ZOOM CLIMBED and wound up in the ocean where it did. Go look. SHEESH!

I have explained the EXACT PHYSICS of the Twin Towers Fall... and OCCAMS RAZOR FITS. Only these idiots who make UP THEIR FACTS find it doesn't fit, but claiming such lies as the towers "fell in the time a rock falls" have to create new explanations so they can sell their books. But the facts are they did NOT fall in that "rock fall time." They made up that facturd. . . just as they made up another facturd they push claiming that the buildings shouldn't have fallen into their own footprints.

Where ELSE should they have FALLEN? It's gravity. Things fall straight down! The amount of force to cause that much mass to fall anywhere else BUT STRAIGHT DOWN is astronomically huge... and where would that force have come from? On what vector? How was it applied? Magic?

It would be interesting if 10 FREEPERS would watch the youtube videos of the fall and do their own count in seconds.

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” ― Mark Twain.

The towers BOTH 'collapsed' at NEAR free-fall. I have done the math. And yes, usually things fall on a direct line aligned with the radii of the Earth ... gravity. The upper 35 floors of one tower tipped fifteen to seventeen degrees off of vertical, but that mass did not arrive at the street over which it tipped. Can you tell me why?

Your alinsky tactics are showing. And you know what Arthur C. Clark said regarding technology and magic ...