Is it true that in the US it is illegal...

69charger

brain_of_jas wrote:

To be honest i have no idea where he got that nonsence from. He was posting it on our local music scene forums. To be honest i think he mostly just cuts and pastes most of it from other sites and doesn't actually know most of what he's talking about. For example he was trying to use Newtons 3rd law to prove controlled demolition of the WTC, without knowing much about Physics. This made me doubt what he was saying so i thought i'd ask some more informed peeps.

Anyone can cut and paste oppinions on the net !!

Wow! I didn't know El_Kabong was into the Scottish music scene. Hell, I didn't even know he was Scottish

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

does newton's law describe why building 7 fell when it was the furthest away and not hit by a plane?

Umm...Newton's 3rd law would simply dictate that in order for building 7 to fall another force would have had to interact with building 7. That "other force" could have been debris, planted explosives, seismic vibrations, exploding gas tanks, etc.

has anyone see the pics of building 5 which had far more fire damage and after the fires went out left pretty much only the steel frame skeleton?

Yes. I've also heard crazy rumors that building fires are not all equal and that buildings themselves are not all the same.

farfromglorified

69charger wrote:

Wow! I didn't know El_Kabong was into the Scottish music scene. Hell, I didn't even know he was Scottish

Chill man.

brain_of_jas

His reasoning for applying newtons 3rd law was that the explosives used in blowing up the buildings created the reaction of the concrete dust which was expelled as the WTC buildings fell. This was nonsence as the law applies to equal and opposing forces in motion unless i'm mistaken? I dont doubt that Newtons 3rd law is required somewhere in the equation but he completely misunderstood where the law applies.

I will try and fins out where he got his info and post it back here

El_Kabong

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes. I've also heard crazy rumors that building fires are not all equal and that buildings themselves are not all the same.

yes, i believe that theory as well...i just haven't heard one explaining why the building hte furthest away and sustained the least amount of damage would fall straight down after buckling in the middle and fall at something like 1 second per floor

brain_of_jas

farfromglorified wrote:

Umm...Newton's 3rd law would simply dictate that in order for building 7 to fall another force would have had to interact with building 7. That "other force" could have been debris, planted explosives, seismic vibrations, exploding gas tanks, etc.



Yes. I've also heard crazy rumors that building fires are not all equal and that buildings themselves are not all the same.

As far as im aware its about EQUAL and OPPOSITE reactions. There is way more involved than just Newtons 3rd Law. The force applied would need to be equal to the force of the reaction.

Factors in the falling of a building would affect this though so its not about equal and opposite reactions

for example when a gun is fired you get an opposite reaction - recoil. However the reaction is not eqaual to the force of the bullet. This is because energy is lost to the environment - heat and sound (the bang of the gun) so newtons law doesnt really apply once you take into account the other factors in the environment

farfromglorified

brain_of_jas wrote:

As far as im aware its about EQUAL and OPPOSITE reactions. There is way more involved than just Newtons 3rd Law. The force applied would need to be equal to the force of the reaction.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Factors in the falling of a building would affect this though so its not about equal and opposite reactions

No. It is all about equal and opposite reactions to many actions, including "factors in the falling of a building".

for example when a gun is fired you get an opposite reaction - recoil. However the reaction is not eqaual to the force of the bullet. This is because energy is lost to the environment - heat and sound (the bang of the gun) so newtons law doesnt really apply once you take into account the other factors in the environment

The force of the "environment" is just another action that must be taken into account. However, this only comes into play once the bullet is accelerating. The force of a gun's recoil is exactly equal to the force on the bullet.

farfromglorified

brain_of_jas wrote:

His reasoning for applying newtons 3rd law was that the explosives used in blowing up the buildings created the reaction of the concrete dust which was expelled as the WTC buildings fell.

Ok. Newton's third law would describe that. Unfortunately, he can probably point to concrete dust coming out of a handful of windows in a haphazard pattern. To bring down a building of that size and shape without toppling it over, explosives would have to be applied in greater quantity and in a much more even pattern of distribution unless the explosives were so powerful that they would have expelled a much greater quantity of dust and torn a multi-story hole in the building in the process.

In short, putting a half-dozen charges in any of the WTC buildings isn't going to bring it down.

This was nonsence as the law applies to equal and opposing forces in motion unless i'm mistaken? I dont doubt that Newtons 3rd law is required somewhere in the equation but he completely misunderstood where the law applies.

Not really. He understands something about where the law applies, he simply doesn't know anything about building demolition. Furthermore, if he really understood his own argument he'd realize why a few haphazard explosions wouldn't bring the building down -- there would be too much force still holding the building up. At best the fucker would have toppled over on its side, which is kind of ironic considering that the must-have-been-explosives crowd for some reason thinks that the building collapsing straight down helps their argument rather than hurts it.

I will try and fins out where he got his info and post it back here

Cool.

even flow?

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060824/NEWS01/108240131/-1/business



GOP candidate says 9/11 attacks were a hoax


By ALBERT McKEON, Telegraph Staff
amckeon@nashuatelegraph.com

Published: Thursday, Aug. 24, 2006


A Republican candidate for this area’s congressional seat said Wednesday that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In an editorial board interview with The Telegraph on Wednesday, the candidate, Mary Maxwell, said the U.S. government had a role in killing nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, so it could make Americans hate Arabs and allow the military to bomb Muslim nations such as Iraq.

Mary Maxwell
OFFICE SOUGHT: U.S. Congress, 2nd District.

AGE: 59.

ADDRESS: Concord.

POLITICAL BACKGROUND: None.

OCCUPATION: Student.

EDUCATION: Doctorate in politics from an Australian college; course in diplomatic and consular law at the University of Mannheim, Germany.

AFFILIATIONS: None.

MILITARY: None.

PERSONAL: Husband, George, deceased.

WEB SITE: http://www.maxwellforcongress.com


Maxwell, 59, seeks the 2nd District congressional seat. The Concord resident opposes the incumbent, Charles Bass of Peterborough, and Berlin Mayor Bob Danderson in the Republican primary Sept. 12.

Maxwell would not specify if she holds the opinion that the government stood by while terrorists hijacked four domestic airliners and used them as weapons, or if it had a larger role by sanctioning and carrying out the attacks.

But she implicated the government by saying the Sept. 11 attacks were meant “to soften us up . . . to make us more willing to have more stringent laws here, which are totally against the Bill of Rights . . . to make us particularly focus on Arabs and Muslims . . . and those strange persons who spend all their time creating little bombs,” giving Americans a reason “to hate them and fear them and, therefore, bomb them in Iraq for other reasons.”

She said this strategy “would be normal” for governments, citing her belief that the British government – and not the Germany military – sank the Lusitania ocean liner in 1915. The deaths of Americans on the cruise liner helped galvanize U.S. support to enter World War I, and benefited England, she said.

In turn, the Sept. 11 attacks “made the ground fertile” for more stringent laws, such as the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Maxwell said.

Near the end of the interview, Maxwell pounded her fist on the table and asked editors of The Telegraph why they weren’t publishing more stories about the government’s role in the terrorist attacks or proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Maxwell has no political experience. She lived abroad for the past quarter-century with her husband, George, a pediatrician, and only recently returned to the U.S., she said.

In the hour-long interview, Maxwell spoke at length about Constitutional law, U.S. law, nuclear weapons proliferation, and other domestic and foreign policy issues.

Maxwell said the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq. She also questioned whether Congress authorized the war and said its members can’t explain that 2002 vote. (Congress authorized the use of force to defend this country’s security and enforce United Nations resolutions on Iraq.)

“Legally, we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq if Congress can’t explain why,” she said.

Maxwell described herself as a strict Constitutionalist, a candidate who wants to bring the country “back to basics.” The Constitution grants more power to the legislative branch than the other two branches, but Congress has allowed the executive and judicial branches to diminish its influence, she said.

She also said the U.S. shouldn’t immerse itself in the international community by signing trade and security pacts. These agreements have weakened national sovereignty, she said.

brain_of_jas

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes, yes, and yes.



No. It is all about equal and opposite reactions to many actions, including "factors in the falling of a building".



The force of the "environment" is just another action that must be taken into account. However, this only comes into play once the bullet is accelerating. The force of a gun's recoil is exactly equal to the force on the bullet.

Aye right, not the best example then. So i thought Newtons law was to do with two objects interacting. Surely the characteristics of the WTC falling involves more than just newtons third law?

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

yes, i believe that theory as well...i just haven't heard one explaining why the building hte furthest away and sustained the least amount of damage would fall straight down after buckling in the middle and fall at something like 1 second per floor

As I've told you before, I can't help you there man. There's little evidence that the building collapsed from debris. There's no evidence that the building collapsed from explosives. The buiding collapsed. That's all we know.

farfromglorified

brain_of_jas wrote:

Aye right, not the best example then. So i thought Newtons law was to do with two objects interacting. Surely the characteristics of the WTC falling involves more than just newtons third law?

Of course it does. It requires all of Newton's laws. It requries the laws of thermodynamics. The list goes on and on.

The explosives theories, in the context of theory, don't violate any physical laws until you start getting into the "no planes" holographic or blue-screen shit. Regardless, it's in the context of practice, causation, motive and evidence that those theories start to unravel.

brain_of_jas

Thanks man you've been a big help.

farfromglorified

brain_of_jas wrote:

Thanks man you've been a big help.

No problem. One final piece of advice if you don't mind:

Do not attempt to debate such a person if your goal is to change their mind about their conclusion regarding the events. It is quite likely that your friend has reached a conclusion on 9/11 that has nothing to do with 9/11. It likely has to do with his feelings about America, or his feelings about governments, or his desire to "be different", or some other external desire or predisposition. You'll never win him over by attacking his faulty conclusions on that event -- you'll only win him over by attacking those desires or predispositions. And that's a pretty tough proposition.

If you just debate it for fun or to test your own arguments, have at it. But if you're looking to change minds then you better pick another issue.

karma defect

reborncareerist wrote:

This isn't meant as a personal insult, brain of jas ... But man. And people say AMERICANS are the ones who don't know about other countries! I'd say it was time to put that stereotype to rest. The rest of the world is on an equal footing!

Well as long as we're on the subject of 'is it true that?'

Is it true that in some states or cities you can get fine for wearing a Meralyn Manson T-shirt? I take it this is not common practise, but is that true?;)

He didn't actually say anything stereotype'ing' He or she asked a question. I bet that there are tons of things you don't know about things going on in other countries. I know that this is true for me. Isn't it (taking that into consideration) a good thing that one would ask a question.

With the whole George Clooney thing it isn't that weird to wonder.

brain_of_jas

farfromglorified wrote:

No problem. One final piece of advice if you don't mind:

Do not attempt to debate such a person if your goal is to change their mind about their conclusion regarding the events. It is quite likely that your friend has reached a conclusion on 9/11 that has nothing to do with 9/11. It likely has to do with his feelings about America, or his feelings about governments, or his desire to "be different", or some other external desire or predisposition. You'll never win him over by attacking his faulty conclusions on that event -- you'll only win him over by attacking those desires or predispositions. And that's a pretty tough proposition.

If you just debate it for fun or to test your own arguments, have at it. But if you're looking to change minds then you better pick another issue.

Im not trying to change anyones views. I just dont like the fact that he shoves it in everyones face all the time. Makes rediculous statements with little or no proof. I'm all about the facts and to be honest i'm somewhere in the middle of the arguement anyway. I'm not fighting anyones corner here. Just trying to find out a bit more for myself. Peace

farfromglorified

brain_of_jas wrote:

Im not trying to change anyones views. I just dont like the fact that he shoves it in everyones face all the time. Makes rediculous statements with little or no proof. I'm all about the facts and to be honest i'm somewhere in the middle of the arguement anyway. I'm not fighting anyones corner here. Just trying to find out a bit more for myself. Peace

Cool. Peace man.

brain_of_jas

Right my numbnuts mate just posted this in response to me asking where he obtained his info:

"9/11 wasn't just orchestrated by the united states government to greatly improve their foreign policy and geopolitical powers, it was just as much orchestrated to muchos muchos clamp down on america's domestic policy and the people's civil liberties in a hugely accelerated police state that benefited from a 50% increase after 9/11.

one single month after 9/11 the united states government introduced...........

THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Security_Act


here is bush signing it in october 2001.........bastard.............how can any right thinking person trust these guys and their blindingly obvious coverup of 9/11?




attacking true patriots with the patriot act it is highly illegal to disagree with the united states goverment and if you choose to do so you will be branded a 'terrorist' domestic or foreign.


Originally passed after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Act was formed in response to the terrorist attacks against the United States, and dramatically expanded the authority of American law enforcement for the stated purpose of fighting terrorist acts in the United States and abroad. It has also been used to detect and prosecute other alleged potential crimes such as providing false information on terrorism. It was renewed on March 2, 2006 with a vote of 89 to 11 in the Senate and on March 7 280 to 138 in the House. The renewal was signed into law by President Bush on March 9, 2006."

I appologise if his views offend anyone

farfromglorified

So your friend is surprised that the US modified its laws after 9/11??

Perhaps you might want to teach your mate about AMBER Alerts. Following the kidnapping of Amber Hagerman here in 1996, the United States created a new system of laws and procedures to help notify the public of missing children. Perhaps your friend also believes Amber Hagerman was kidnapped by Bill Clinton???

Please. If no changes to law would have been made following 9/11, that would have been cause for suspicion. You're talking about the most serious aggressive act on US soil since Pearl Harbor, after which you had people being detained based on race alone. While I'm no supporter of the Patriot Act, the suggestion that 9/11 was staged such that the Patriot Act could be passed is completely baseless and ridiculous.

brain_of_jas

Yeah totally man. Also i read through the articles on both laws and neither one says that the public can't dissagree with the governments version of events. So you still have the first amendment and can question the commissions report yes? I think he's wasting my time! :rolleyes: