On 9/11, the laws of physics were suspended for one day and one day only. Newtons laws of motion went AWOL and it’s like everything we have been told about gravity since grade school was a lie. Take the 9/11 physics quiz and try not to fall for this new physics we all witnessed on 9/11.
The laws of motion do not lie but governments have been known to.
So the post of a 9.11.01 physics quiz is to tell people something everyone already knows? help inform the public that controlled demolitions are the most logical conclusion, based on elementary physics experiments.
On 9.11 we were told that the block on the left fell through the path of greatest resistance at *nearly the same rate it would have taken to fall through air.
Not only is this physically impossible but it also violates Newton's laws of motion.
On 9.11 we were told that the block on the left fell through the path of greatest resistance at *nearly the same rate it would have taken to fall through air.
Got a reliable source on that? I only hear scammers and anonymous message board comments make that claim.
I asked for a reliable source, not the official story. Although if you think the official story is the only reliable source, it makes me wonder why you're making an argument against it.
Obvious the one with no building in the way. This is reflected in reality as well. The twin towers did not collapse at freefall speed... you can see free-falling debris falling faster than the collapse in any video for one.
Here's a question. Have you ever bothered showing this to a qualified professional in person? Maybe a physics or engineering professor in your area? You know, someone qualified that can explain these complicated processes to you? I say in person, because it is a lot harder to discount people as shills when you have to look them in the eye.
Edit: regarding my comment you inexplicably decided to cite, I stand by my position, although I'll admit to using a bit of hyperbole. I think most 911 truth theories are pretty silly (your linked material being an obvious example), but certainly not the stupidest things I've come across.
You misunderstand. The answer is A. This is an objective question, there should be no option for "roughly the same time". The object with less resistance will hit the ground first. This is reflected in reality. The towers did not fall at free fall.
I already explained this. Judging by your lack of response, am I to assume you've never actually consulted an expert regarding your suspicions.
Objective tests require a user to choose or provide a response to a question whose correct answer is predetermined. The buildings fell at roughly the same rate as free-fall. It's rather obvious why you can't answer the question correctly.
there should be no option for "roughly the same time".
That's because it's the correct answer and you can't admit you have no other explanation that fits the description of events. Controlled demolition is the only explanation.
On 9.11 we were told that the block on the left fell through the path of greatest resistance at nearly the same rate it would have taken to fall through air.
Not only is this physically impossible but it also violates Newton's laws of motion.
The towers did not fall at free fall.
No one claims they did. Straw man arguments aren't welcome here.
The buildings fell at roughly the same rate as free-fall.
No one claims they did. Straw man arguments aren't welcome here.
In the same comment. Wow.
The answer is A. No debate. If we look at the laughably unscientific "roughly" description it is too vague to be valid, as in this scenario A hits first every single time, So that description of C doesn't work in the context of the questions.
I get the point you are trying (poorly) to make. But this question doesn't demonstrate that. You would want a question like "how much sooner does the piece on the right hit the ground?". Then the answer could surprise people based on how fast the tower with all that visible resistance collapsed.
Of course, my answer to that question would be, "it depends on various factors including weight of the upper portion, resistance provided by the floors below (blueprints/floorplans/calculations required), kinetic energy generated from the collapse initiation etc." So even then, this silly little flawed logical trap only works on those who have already decided that 9/11 was an inside job. This quiz attempts to reduce a complicated process to the point of irrelevance. It is pointless.
Now, rather than endure another exercise of you hearing what you want hear in my comment followed by me correcting your twisting of my words yet again, I'll end this conversation now.
You may have dodged my question about actually consulting an expert entirely, but I can say with relatively certainly That I doubt you've ever even tried. Why don't you give it a try. Ask someone honest questions in person and see what happens
I work for Illuminaughty. I have been tasked with having discussions on unpopular threads on niche internet forums, in order to prevent the truth of 9/11 from coming out. Now that I've been discovered, I may as well reveal the truth to you now.
George W. Bush commissioned a team of Mossad Agents to fill the buildings with anti-matter bombs. This is the only way free-fall collapse is attainable. The controlled demolition theories are a red herring. Anyone supporting those theories is a shill, most likely employed by the JIDF. If they state otherwise, that is further proof of their shillness.
The reasons for the attack aren't what you think though. It wasn't about getting to the Middle East for oil, the real reason was far more sinister.
Back in the 1970's, Bin Laden organized a raid on Area 51, capturing alien technology and hiding it among the mountains of Afganistan. This was used as leverage for generations, as the Americans couldn't let the truth out to the world. If the rest of the world found out that they hid first contact in order to harvest their technology, there would be outrage. All world events America was involved in were at OBL's beck and call. They planned 911 to discredit him, and destroyed the evidence by bombing the mountains, until the pretense that OBL was hiding in a cave.
Open your eyes, Sheeple.
Just happened to see it in the new queue right after our convo. Not my fault you are a spammer. Believe me, I am not trying to spend any more time in your company than I have to. (Edit: I just like to challenge bad arguments)
I'm not posting it because I'm not the one pushing it as a valid argument. If you were to post it you could discuss its relevance with actual experts! What is stopping you?
I'm not posting it because I'm not the one pushing it as a valid argument.
What's stopping you? This is the second time you've asked in 1 hour on two different threads.
If you were sure of yourself, you would take the leap. But you're hesitating. That says a lot about your railroading technique. You won't even try to prove you're right!
You stalk and harass me but can't follow through on your great idea. That's about right for a debunker of your caliber.
I didnt stalk you. You posted an argument I disagreed with multiple times and I took the oppurtunity to express my opinion multiple times. Sorry this angers you so much.
Edit: also, go to ask engineers, I posted it. I wont link because I dont want to invite a brigade. I'd ask that you refrain as well.
Hello, I'm a skeptic when it comes to this sort of thing, but I've seen this quiz getting passed around in conspiracy circles regarding 9/11. (I know you all must be sick of this!).
You need to poison the well. That says a lot about your character.
This is how a debunker (yourself) has to frame a debate. How many times do you poison the well in your question to engineers? I count 6 times. You must be scared!!!!
Hello, I'm a skeptic when it comes to this sort of thing, but I've seen this quiz getting passed around in conspiracy circles regarding 9/11. (I know you all must be sick of this!). I challenged the legitimacy of the quiz to a particularly committed user and they pushed me to post it here and get a more expert opinion. If you are interested, could you take a look and evaluate?
I figure there is no better place to either confirm my problems with it or tell me that the truthers got this one right!
I apologize to the mods if I broke any rules, and I understand if you all are sick of questions like this or don't want to risk inviting an r/conspiracy brigade. Like I said, any input is appreciated!
(Edit: If I'm being honest I'm actually embarassed to post this. Given the arguments that quiz makes, I think this falls way below the paygrade of all you folks here. If it is inappropriate, let me know and I'll delete!)
I work for Illuminaughty. I have been tasked with having discussions on unpopular threads on niche internet forums, in order to prevent the truth of 9/11 from coming out. Now that I've been discovered, I may as well reveal the truth to you now.
George W. Bush commissioned a team of Mossad Agents to fill the buildings with anti-matter bombs. This is the only way free-fall collapse is attainable. The controlled demolition theories are a red herring. Anyone supporting those theories is a shill, most likely employed by the JIDF. If they state otherwise, that is further proof of their shillness.
The reasons for the attack aren't what you think though. It wasn't about getting to the Middle East for oil, the real reason was far more sinister.
Back in the 1970's, Bin Laden organized a raid on Area 51, capturing alien technology and hiding it among the mountains of Afganistan. This was used as leverage for generations, as the Americans couldn't let the truth out to the world. If the rest of the world found out that they hid first contact in order to harvest their technology, there would be outrage. All world events America was involved in were at OBL's beck and call. They planned 911 to discredit him, and destroyed the evidence by bombing the mountains, until the pretense that OBL was hiding in a cave.
Open your eyes, Sheeple.
42 comments
4 HaltNWO 2015-05-27
Ah yes, the old self-post-to-get-around-the-spam-filter. What's even the point of this submission?
1 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
from the website:
0 HaltNWO 2015-05-27
So the post of a physics quiz is to tell people something everyone already knows?
1 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
What was your answer for #1?
0 HaltNWO 2015-05-27
A
2 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
Incorrect!
On 9.11 we were told that the block on the left fell through the path of greatest resistance at *nearly the same rate it would have taken to fall through air.
Not only is this physically impossible but it also violates Newton's laws of motion.
0 HaltNWO 2015-05-27
Got a reliable source on that? I only hear scammers and anonymous message board comments make that claim.
1 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
Oxymoron alert.
Why would I link to a reliable source that's based on a lie?
-1 HaltNWO 2015-05-27
You don't have a reliable source for your beliefs? Do you just form opinions based on emotions?
Can you define "nearly", then? What value for acceleration do you consider "nearly" free-fall?
1 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
You asked me to source the official story. That is an oxymoron.
Can you please form a coherent retort? Thanks!
0 HaltNWO 2015-05-27
I asked for a reliable source, not the official story. Although if you think the official story is the only reliable source, it makes me wonder why you're making an argument against it.
1 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
1 HaltNWO 2015-05-27
No, you didn't.
3 shadowofashadow 2015-05-27
http://www.reddit.com/user/kendoc911
He posts here too.
1 dennabebotnoos 2015-05-27
Do you really think that you can summarize and explain a building collapse with stacks of books, boxes and Jenga blocks?
If building related physics were this simple, we wouldn't need structural engineers.
2 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
http://www.np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/36vezj/haaretz_reported_shortly_after_911_that_netanyahu/crhzr5z
Take question #1 for instance. What would your answer be?
You've made your debunking opinions known throughout this sub. Time to focus.
4 dennabebotnoos 2015-05-27
Obvious the one with no building in the way. This is reflected in reality as well. The twin towers did not collapse at freefall speed... you can see free-falling debris falling faster than the collapse in any video for one.
Here's a question. Have you ever bothered showing this to a qualified professional in person? Maybe a physics or engineering professor in your area? You know, someone qualified that can explain these complicated processes to you? I say in person, because it is a lot harder to discount people as shills when you have to look them in the eye.
Edit: regarding my comment you inexplicably decided to cite, I stand by my position, although I'll admit to using a bit of hyperbole. I think most 911 truth theories are pretty silly (your linked material being an obvious example), but certainly not the stupidest things I've come across.
1 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
Please answer the question if you want to be taken seriously.
2 dennabebotnoos 2015-05-27
I did? Read my post please
1 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
1) Which Block will hit the ground first?
A) Right.
B) Left.
C) Roughly the Same Time.
D) Not sure after 9/11.
Your answer is C, correct? You answered A but then changed your answer to C with your explanation.
Please try again. This time, you can only choose one answer, not two!
E: formatting
5 dennabebotnoos 2015-05-27
You misunderstand. The answer is A. This is an objective question, there should be no option for "roughly the same time". The object with less resistance will hit the ground first. This is reflected in reality. The towers did not fall at free fall.
I already explained this. Judging by your lack of response, am I to assume you've never actually consulted an expert regarding your suspicions.
0 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
Objective tests require a user to choose or provide a response to a question whose correct answer is predetermined. The buildings fell at roughly the same rate as free-fall. It's rather obvious why you can't answer the question correctly.
That's because it's the correct answer and you can't admit you have no other explanation that fits the description of events. Controlled demolition is the only explanation.
On 9.11 we were told that the block on the left fell through the path of greatest resistance at nearly the same rate it would have taken to fall through air.
Not only is this physically impossible but it also violates Newton's laws of motion.
No one claims they did. Straw man arguments aren't welcome here.
2 dennabebotnoos 2015-05-27
In the same comment. Wow.
The answer is A. No debate. If we look at the laughably unscientific "roughly" description it is too vague to be valid, as in this scenario A hits first every single time, So that description of C doesn't work in the context of the questions.
I get the point you are trying (poorly) to make. But this question doesn't demonstrate that. You would want a question like "how much sooner does the piece on the right hit the ground?". Then the answer could surprise people based on how fast the tower with all that visible resistance collapsed.
Of course, my answer to that question would be, "it depends on various factors including weight of the upper portion, resistance provided by the floors below (blueprints/floorplans/calculations required), kinetic energy generated from the collapse initiation etc." So even then, this silly little flawed logical trap only works on those who have already decided that 9/11 was an inside job. This quiz attempts to reduce a complicated process to the point of irrelevance. It is pointless.
Now, rather than endure another exercise of you hearing what you want hear in my comment followed by me correcting your twisting of my words yet again, I'll end this conversation now.
You may have dodged my question about actually consulting an expert entirely, but I can say with relatively certainly That I doubt you've ever even tried. Why don't you give it a try. Ask someone honest questions in person and see what happens
0 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
Your disinformation techniques need some work!
The correct answer is C. And you are correct, there is no debate you can put forth that will change the answer to A.
Happy debunking!
3 dennabebotnoos 2015-05-27
Why not attempt to address my argument?
1 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
-dennabebotnoos's words
1 dennabebotnoos 2015-05-27
Good point.
Have a good one, dont let the shills get ya!
3 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
-dennabebotnoos's words
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-05-27
Yah, I had fun writing that! Not sure why you felt like posting it, but I'm glad you appreciated it!
So are you going to try your quiz in a sub where people are most educated on the subject?
Edit: changed a word
1 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
Are you going to try your quiz in a sub where people are most educated on the subject?
What's stopping you? This is the second time you've asked in 1 hour on two different threads.
I have my very own stalker!
1 dennabebotnoos 2015-05-27
Just happened to see it in the new queue right after our convo. Not my fault you are a spammer. Believe me, I am not trying to spend any more time in your company than I have to. (Edit: I just like to challenge bad arguments)
I'm not posting it because I'm not the one pushing it as a valid argument. If you were to post it you could discuss its relevance with actual experts! What is stopping you?
1 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
What's stopping you? This is the second time you've asked in 1 hour on two different threads.
If you were sure of yourself, you would take the leap. But you're hesitating. That says a lot about your railroading technique. You won't even try to prove you're right!
You stalk and harass me but can't follow through on your great idea. That's about right for a debunker of your caliber.
1 dennabebotnoos 2015-05-27
Fine, I'll try ask engineers, see if they'll accept it. You really should have the balls to stand behind your own argument thougj
1 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
You stalk and harass me but can't follow through on your great idea. That's about right for a debunker of your caliber.
2 dennabebotnoos 2015-05-27
I didnt stalk you. You posted an argument I disagreed with multiple times and I took the oppurtunity to express my opinion multiple times. Sorry this angers you so much.
Edit: also, go to ask engineers, I posted it. I wont link because I dont want to invite a brigade. I'd ask that you refrain as well.
2 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
You need to poison the well. That says a lot about your character.
Debunker extraordinaire for the win!
2 dennabebotnoos 2015-05-27
Could've been avoided if you had the balls to post yourself.
Edit: The mods indicated it isnt really appropriate for the sub, so I will delete out of respect for them anyway.
1 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
Nothing can stop you from poisoning the well, not even a post I make!
2 dennabebotnoos 2015-05-27
You can frame a post you make however you want. I chose to frame a post I make that way.
Post yourself or deal with it. It is deleted now anyways. Alright, now I'm actually done with this.
Thanks for the entertaining conversations!
1 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
This is how a debunker (yourself) has to frame a debate. How many times do you poison the well in your question to engineers? I count 6 times. You must be scared!!!!
https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911-info/911-experiments/911-physics-quiz/
1 dennabebotnoos 2015-05-27
1 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
A dishonest debunker? I'm speechless!
3 thefuckingtoe 2015-05-27
-dennabebotnoos's words