Matthew Lewis
-
Posts
611 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Matthew Lewis
-
-
"Seems more likely there was something in the park that affected you."
I walk in the park everyday and never get sick.. Yet on the two occasions where a chemtrail grid was criss crossing the sky above me, I came down with the worst case of "flu" I ever had, and also a case of vertigo that lasted for months.
Flu and dizziness (vertigo) are two of the known symptoms of chemtrail exposure... Coincidence? .. I don't think so.
Flu and dizziness are symptoms of a lot of things. Known for "chemtrails" which happen to look exactly like contrails? Doubtful given what I said before about how long an aerosol at altitude will take to reach the ground. Which brings up an interesting point. One of the primary identifiers of "chemtrails" is that they persist for longer than expected (although possible wih contrails) but if they are persisting and still in the air then how are they affect you on the ground at the same time miles away?
-
"How do you KNOW they were NOT contrails?"
There's a big difference between contrails and chemtrails.
"Chemtrails Are: Persistent lines of chemical-infused aerosol spray dispersals from typically unmarked planes which are now seen in the sky all over the world. Unlike normal jet contrails formed from water vapor, chemtrails spread to form a thick blanket of cloud cover, held together by polymer fibers until they reach the ground, contaminating crops, water supplies and humans with radioactive soft metals and dessicated red blood cells which contain active human pathogens.
Researchers discovered 6 different agendas or motives for these operations, some of which may overlap: environment or climate changes, biological, military purposes, electromagnetic, geophysical or global effects, and exotic propulsion systems. Analysis of material from chemtrails has revealed magnetic salts, including the toxic substance of barium. Fibers, submicron in size, have also been detected, and they bear a physical similarity to the filaments found in Morgellons Disease.
This video was originally intended to include a Part II version which would have included interviews with Chemtrail debunkers. There are good references to chemtrail debunker websites on Wikipedia including interviews with NASA's Patrick Minnis."
Along with Air Force Matthew, NASA is also busy "debunking" chemtrails... Wouldn't ya know?
This video actually shows footage of a plane turning the spray on and off.. Normal contrails don't behave that way.
Normal contrails CAN behave that way. They are determined by the air conditions the plane travels through and air is not always uniform. Contrails can persist depending on the conditions. ALL samples that have been tested have been collected on the ground. There is no proof whatsoever that what has been tested has come from "chemtrails". So again, how do you KNOW they were NOT contrails? Everything that has been described as a description of "chemtrails" can be explained by the long known science of contrails. Did you or Jack charter a plane and collect samples directly from the trail? Why would you assume something collected on the ground miles away from the trail must come from the "chemtrail"? How are all other possible sources ruled out? Seems like shoddy science at best
-
Duane...I am glad you brought chemtrails back to the top.
Last Thursday I took Sue to the eye doctor. On the way home, I noted 8 chemplanes spraying
simultaneously, though I had seen none in the previous week.
This time (wish I had my camera!) the guys were having fun...SKYWRITING!
In 6 different sectors of the sky they were making big letters...
YI, T, V, N, Z, III, W, and M. The III was older and dissipating; I watched one of the letters being
done by two planes. (The W and M depended on the viewing angle, as did the N and Z.)
These were all short bursts, on and off, to make the letters. They were NOT contrails.
Jack
How do you KNOW they were NOT contrails?
-
As I was walking my dog one day with a friend, we looked up at the sky over the park near my home and saw a grid of chemtrails.. The next day she started feeling ill.. The day after that she was violently throwing up and got so dehydrated that I had to rush her to the ER.. While she was in the hospital, I also became violently ill.. Though I didn't go to the ER, I knew I had never been that sick before and even feared for my life.. Our "flu" symptoms, though not as severe as the first few days, lasted for almost two months.
On another occasion, I was walking my dog in the same park and saw another grid of chemtrails overhead.. The next morning I woke up to the room spinning.. After that subsided, my equilibrium was so messed up that it caused me to have vertigo that lasted almost five months.
Now when I see chemtrails over the park, I stay in the house.
"Project Clover Leaf" Secret Chemtrail Program Revealed
http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/project-clover-leaf-secret-chemtrail-program-revealed
Seems more likely there was something in the park that affected you.
Since studies of aerosols at altitude (volcanic eruptions, fuel dumps) show that it can take days, sometimes weeks or months for it to reach the ground, how do you know it was the trails multiple miles in the air affecting you?
Incidentally, the plane on the upper right your your posted graphic is not spraying, nor a tanker. It is a NAVY E6 Tacamo jet doing a fuel dump.
-
For DISTANT shots of the LM, a studio prop made of cardboard thumbtacked to a wooden frame worked OK.
BUT, it would not pass close inspection.
Jack
How many spacecraft have you built Jack? Do you know the difference between structural material (which is not visible in your photograph) and insulative, reflective, and/or micrometeoroid protective material (which is visible)? Apparently not. Just because you are ignorant about what you are looking at doesn't mean anyone else is. Interestingly enough the LM shares many similarities with satellites (much of the same materials used) which also, just like the LM, were designed to spend their entire service life in the vacuum of space. Why do you suppose that the thousands of scientists all over the world that do build and work with spacecraft for a living don't have a problem with the way the LM looked?
And they put it together with thumbtacks?
How do you KNOW those are thumbtacks?
-
For DISTANT shots of the LM, a studio prop made of cardboard thumbtacked to a wooden frame worked OK.
BUT, it would not pass close inspection.
Jack
How many spacecraft have you built Jack? Do you know the difference between structural material (which is not visible in your photograph) and insulative, reflective, and/or micrometeoroid protective material (which is visible)? Apparently not. Just because you are ignorant about what you are looking at doesn't mean anyone else is. Interestingly enough the LM shares many similarities with satellites (much of the same materials used) which also, just like the LM, were designed to spend their entire service life in the vacuum of space. Why do you suppose that the thousands of scientists all over the world that do build and work with spacecraft for a living don't have a problem with the way the LM looked?
-
When the wheels are in line, the trailing wheels would obiterate the tracks from the leading wheels as they make their own tracks. There are photos that show the multiple tracks when the rover turns.
-
What about your false accusation of someone here accusing you of faking the picture?
-
In the old version where the rock is supposedly missing, it looks to be a low quality image. There is also "something" in the precise spot and shape as the rock in the new one. I would say the new image is better resolution and better contrast. That is all.
pixel resize
Thank you John. As I said, there is definitely something there. How dare NASA release a photo that shows something better that was there all along!
-
WHO accused you of tampering with or faking it? NOBODY here has done so.
-
In the old version where the rock is supposedly missing, it looks to be a low quality image. There is also "something" in the precise spot and shape as the rock in the new one. I would say the new image is better resolution and better contrast. That is all.
-
The difference between your position and mine is that yours is a possible position for which there is no evidence,
while mine is a position for which there is abundant evidence. These are relatively clear-cut cases where there is
NO INDICATION OF ROVER TRACKS, not even ones partially obscured by the "activities" of those who were
in the vicinity. There would be PARTIAL TRACKS and EVIDENCE OF OBFUSCATION. But there is none.
Of which Evan Burton pointed out some.
Whichmeans that you are offering a speculation that you cannot justify on the basis of relevant and available evidence.
A hilarious statement coming from one inventing a means of moving the rover for which there is no evidence at all. At least everything I've suggested was actually seen.
-
I agree that it didn't HAVE TO BE a crane, but some mechanical or physical means were used to position the rover
for these photographs. I am a bit taken aback that you can't see that for yourself, since you appear to be a smart
guy. If you think a rover could be driven or pused into position without leaving rover tracks, you are fantasizing.
I NEVER said that it never left tracks. Don't put words in my mouth. I said I see soil disturbed by astronaut's movement. How is it fantasizing to speculate that tracks may have been covered up or obliterated due to activity we KNOW happened?
I am a bit taken aback (not really, I've come to expect it from you and Jack) that you make the jump in logic to "some mechanical or physical means were used to position the rover" when there is no evidence of any such postioning AND we KNOW the vehicle could move under its own power, we KNOW it was light enough to pick up by hand and we KNOW that the soil was easily kicked up and could therefore obscure some tracks. Further, I've seen it pointed out on another forum that there are partial tracks visible in some photos (partial due to footprints in the area, imagine that) and that at least one of the photos in question was taken a half hour after the rover stopped. That is a half hour of activity that might feasibly kick up loose soil.
Frankly this whole thing seems like a non-issue. Even if fake and on a set the tracks could STILL be obscured due to soil kicked up by movements of the actors. I'm just waiting for the supposed "good" evidence to be presented. But in the meantime, please continue to post the pictures of what looks like a track from tractor wheels with footprints made from sneakers that was obviously NOT taken on the Moon as your "evidence".
-
Thanks, Matt. Maybe Burton ought to hire you as his PR man.
Burton doesn't need my help.
Maybe it wasn't a crane, but surely you can see there are too many photos taken in too many situations that do not have the obvious signs that the rover was driven or rolled to those locations.I see that in those instances there is loose soil disturbed by footprints. I see absolutely no reason to make the illogical jump to a crane.
I worry that you seem to be unable to distinguish between possible but very improbable conclusionsand alternatives that provide a better explanation for the evidence and thereby earn higher degrees of logical support.
A crane which would be expensive, impractical and stupid and for which there is no evidence provides a better explanation than the soil was disturbed by the astronauts moving around which we KNOW they did?
-
Because they could never drive near previous tracks.
What is apparent to me is how shallow the tracks are and how easy it might be to obscure them with footprints or kicked soil.
What I don't understand is why ANYBODY would devise a crane to move a set piece when the set piece
1. has wheels
2. is light enought to pick up
3. is shown in videos to be able to move under its own power.
Now really, is this your best evidence? You can't find tracks in photos that show lots of obvious movement of the soil from footprints so it MUST have been a crane that moved it?
I'm starting to see why some hoax believers on other forums think you are a government plant Jack.
-
Why tape? A strip of tape, unlike a point fastener, spreads the force out over a distance. It makes whatever is being attached less likely to rip.
-
Well, I am neither a pilot nor an aeronautical engineer, but I did offer links to several sources at the start,
which I gather you have not pursued. One is the result of my research on what happened at the Pentagon:
James H. Fetzer, "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html
The other is a link to an affidavit by one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, John Lear:
John Lear, Affidavit in the Judy Wood Lawsuit, http://911scholars.ning.com/main/search/search?q=John+Lear+affidavit
where John explains that a 767 could not have flown as fast as shown in the videos of the hit on the
South Tower, which was around 560 mph, which approximates its cruising speed at 35,000 feet altitude,
not 700-1,000 feet where the air is three times denser. So I am interested in knowing whether it is your
opinion that a 757 could have flown at 500 mph close to the ground IGNORING GROUND EFFECT.
I am perfectly willing to contact John and Nila with your contentions about a 757 flying at 500 mph
on a horizontal trajectory into the Pentagon. It didn't happen, of course, but we are debating the
point of whether or not it would have been aerodynamically possible. My inference is that it is not,
you are contending that it is. So tell me about the speed, too, and I'll also discuss that with them.
Could it fly at 500mph close to the ground ignoring ground effect? I don't know. I seen statements both ways from qualified parties but I don't have the knowledge nor the personal experience to speculate, so I won't. I don't really care either. I've commented on what I have knowledge of. Honestly, most of 911 I don't really care about and most of 911 I don't comment on.
Doing my Pentagon studies, I googled GROUND EFFECT LIFT and found an article by a professor at the University of Washington.
I incorporated his information and illustration into my study. I suggest that Mr. Lewis debate the professor on Ground Effect Lift.
Jack
What would be the point Jack? It is already apparent that neither of us will budge. You really want this to turn into another pissing match like the other "debate" on this forum?
And further I have already posted info showing that yours and his misconception for ground effect is wrong. Or did you miss this quote?
there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the groundAGAIN, ground effect DECREASES with increased speed and increases with increased angle of attack. Please check the references I previously posted. Your understanding as stated in your study is backward. That is why it is a notable effect in landing when aircraft are at LOW speeds and High angles of attack. It doesn't make it impossible to land, it is just another factor that a pilot has to take into account. A plane moving at high speed will pretty much go where you point it.
Jack, I have a serious question for you not really related to this thread. Why don't you use a web based photo hosting service like photobucket to post your studies? I realize that it may be easier to just upload them to the forum but that means they don't show up in quotes and they use the forum's limited bandwidth. I believe they may also have an expiration. I saw a post of yours from a few months back that did not have an upload attached to it anymore (I don't remember the post or location, sorry). That may be an unintended consequence of the forum software. Linking to photobucket or a similar service would be permanent (at least as long as that service exists), save this forum and others their bandwidth and allow others to link to your studies as well.
-
Honestly, most of 911 I don't really care about and most of 911 I don't comment on.
Please pardon the intrusion, Jim, and not to break the integrity of your thread, but Matthew's position, as stated in the above sentence, reminds me of Lamson's position regarding JFK. Neither of them care about the core issues contained within the TOPIC of the threads! Lamson has stated that he doesn't care about JFK and Lewis doesn't "really" care about most of 911. Yet both post and argue their respective points with vigor...indeed even argue at times quite passionately--to advance positions on subjects that neither of them care about.
Fascinating...
I argue about points that I KNOW are presented wrong. I choose not to argue about points I could only speculate about. I don't care about most of 911 because I don't see anything changing. I've seen arguments back and forth for more than 8 years on the subject and NOTHING seems to change. The same issues are brought up over and over with the same arguments and neither on either side make any concessions. I used to care more. I don't care much anymore. As for the points I argue, I don't care who I correct or in other words, which side they are on. All I care about is that the few facts I do know are presented correctly. I can and have corrected and argued with those on both sides of the issue. Is it wrong to want more accuracy overall? Is it wrong to not want to speculate reagrding issues I admit I don't know much about?
-
Well, I am neither a pilot nor an aeronautical engineer, but I did offer links to several sources at the start,
which I gather you have not pursued. One is the result of my research on what happened at the Pentagon:
James H. Fetzer, "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html
The other is a link to an affidavit by one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, John Lear:
John Lear, Affidavit in the Judy Wood Lawsuit, http://911scholars.ning.com/main/search/search?q=John+Lear+affidavit
where John explains that a 767 could not have flown as fast as shown in the videos of the hit on the
South Tower, which was around 560 mph, which approximates its cruising speed at 35,000 feet altitude,
not 700-1,000 feet where the air is three times denser. So I am interested in knowing whether it is your
opinion that a 757 could have flown at 500 mph close to the ground IGNORING GROUND EFFECT.
I am perfectly willing to contact John and Nila with your contentions about a 757 flying at 500 mph
on a horizontal trajectory into the Pentagon. It didn't happen, of course, but we are debating the
point of whether or not it would have been aerodynamically possible. My inference is that it is not,
you are contending that it is. So tell me about the speed, too, and I'll also discuss that with them.
Could it fly at 500mph close to the ground ignoring ground effect? I don't know. I seen statements both ways from qualified parties but I don't have the knowledge nor the personal experience to speculate, so I won't. I don't really care either. I've commented on what I have knowledge of. Honestly, most of 911 I don't really care about and most of 911 I don't comment on.
-
Matt, I could tell you thought you had some special competence in this area. But as I understand it--
with which you are of course in disagreement--the compressed gas beneath the fuselage and wings of a
commercial carrier flying near the ground at high speed would make it impossible to get closer to the
ground than about a wing's length. Planes are only able to land because they decrease their airspeed
and the packet of compressed gas diminishes, which of course is what happens in normal fight. Now if
Nila was wrong in his explanation to me at LAX in June 2006, then I may be mistaken. But he is very
competent and I have no reason to suppose that I am wrong, with due respect to you and your buddy.
The compressed air explanation of ground effect is wrong as shown on the references I previously posted. Even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't change the FACT that ground effect DECREASES as speed INCREASES
These quotes specifically
First of all, there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground. The true cause of ground effect is the influence of the ground on the wing's angle of attack as described above. Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack. Second, we have seen that this effect actually decreases with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies.This dependency is rather simple to remember--if speed is high, angle of attack is low. If speed is low, angle of attack must be high. Furthermore, when angle of attack is low, we have seen that induced drag is also low. If induced drag is low, the downwash generated by the wing must be small. If downwash is small, then the trailing vortices must be relatively narrow in diameter. If the trailing vortices are narrow, then the proximity of the ground can have little effect on their formation and ground effect will be minimal by definition.And this quote which explains Nila
Another common phenomenon that is misunderstood is that of ground effect. That is the increased efficiency of a wing when flying within a wing length of the ground. A low-wing airplane will experience a reduction in drag by 50% just before it touches down. There is a great deal of confusion about ground effect. Many pilots (and the FAA VFR Exam-O-Gram No. 47) mistakenly believe that ground effect is the result of air being compressed between the wing and the ground.And this graphic
Notice specifically how ground effect (and lift itself) is less with lower angles of attack
Of course, it a plane were not flying on the horizontal, the situation would be different, which waswhy you wanted to disregard the horizontal flight trajectory.
No, if you had noticed I said a horizontal trajectory would mean a LOW or ZERO angle of attack which supports me.
I think my understanding is consistent with http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0130.shtml, but no doubt there are
more complex ways to explain it. That is how I have understood "ground effect" to function from Nila.
It would have been impossible to fly just skimming the ground on a horizontal approach at 500 mph.
Even though that site says this?
"there is no "cushion of air" holding the plane up and making it "float." "
It in no way indicates that it would impossible to fly horizontal at high speeds.
-
The plane was just skimming the ground as the purported trajectory, which included hitting a series of
lampposts--are you unaware of the official trajectory?--and at 500 mph would have had sufficient ground
effect that it could not have come closer than about one wing length (about 60 feet for a 757 with a wing
span of 125 feet) to the ground. Among those with whom I have discussed this is a pilot and aeronautical
engineer, Nila Sagadevan, where additional confirmation can be found on the site of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
Without understanding that the plane was purportedly flying just above ground level for a considerable
horizontal distance, of course, you could argue about "angles of attack". But it was on a flat trajectory.
Indeed, if you check it, Pilots concluded the whole Pentagon attack scenario is ridiculous aerodynamically.
You didn't even answer my questions. I don't CARE about light posts, trajectory, or the data recorder. I didn't mention them. Please try to stay on topic. I asked if YOUR STATEMENT was referring to ground effect and stated that if so then according to rules of aerodynamics that ground effect would be negligible. So again, does your statement refer to ground effect? What do you think about the FACTS that show that ground effect would be negligible at high speed and a low angles of attack?
I am a pilot. I have experienced ground effect for myself and know when it does and does not occur. I also have a degree in aviation. Another pilot on this board has also weighed in. I am aware of the trajectory and the lamp posts but that is NOT what I am talking about. I have asked twice if your statement is specifically referring to ground effect and you have until now failed to give a clear answer. I say that it is WRONG that ground effect would cause the trajectory to be impossible for the reasons that I have already stated. Aeronautical science shows this.
A flat trajectory would NOT be a high angle of attack. It would be low or more likely zero. Yet again showing that ground effect would be reduced and NOT a factor.
-
All I asked for is where it says it collapsed in 10 seconds. The rest is superfluous. 10 seconds is OBVIOUSLY wrong. So why accept it? Especially when it is in the official report and you reject the official report?
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT states (on page 305), "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed
in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well as [others] . . . ." Now,
why do you suppose anyone would believe that the buildings collapsed in about ten second each?
But, of course, and far more importantly, THEY DID NOT COLLAPSE AT ALL but were converted
into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, as I have already explained and also demonstrated.
So your site claims that the collapse of the Twin Towers took 13-14 seconds? And it also admits,
Despite the availability of video evidence establishing lower bounds of total collapse times of
over 13 seconds for each of the towers, assertions that they collapsed in under ten seconds are
widespread. Collapse times of eight to ten seconds are common not only in literature of the skeptics,
but also in publications promoting the official explanation. A Scientific American article about a
2001 public meeting of engineers on the MIT campus in Cambridge, MA gives a figure of nine seconds.
And as David Greer has explained, even NIST set the figures at 9 and 11 seconds, for an average of
10. But far more important than this attempt to read events beneath a cloud of dust is that neither
of the buildings "collapsed", from which it follows that none of those times represent the time that
it took for them to collapse. They were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust,
as "New 9/11 Photos Released", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html, so dramatically displays.
No, there is a lot of misinformation out there. Notice I said the towers were destroyed in about
10 seconds, while he corrects me to say one fell in 9 and the other in 11 (9 + 11 + 20/2 = 10)!
Talk about splitting hairs! And I explicitly discuss the frames from the Pentagon cameras in my
Powerpoint presentation at http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/Buenos-Aires.html It's hard to show what you are
talking about in written words when so much of the evidence is photographic, as I also explain.
A truther site that shows the towers took considerably LONGER than 10 seconds each to collapse
How is that site misinformation?
First, not "my site". A site. I happen to agree with that conclusion but I am in no way affiliated with the site, nor do I agree with everything presented.
How does that answer my question? How is the site I posted which breaks the collapse down into half second intervals and clearly shows that they each took at least 13 seconds misinformation? I didn't ask about what other sites and sources may say.
And Dave Greer did NOT say that NIST said the collapses were 9 and 11 seconds, nor did NIST. They said the first exterior panels hit the ground in that time. That says NOTHING about how long the total collapse took.
Still wondering why YOU would claim the collapses took 10 seconds when the available evidence shows otherwise.
-
Well, the official account has the plane just barely skimming the grass as it approaches the Pentagon, even
taking out lampposts on its trajectory. This is quite absurd, of course, since the effects of a plane flying at
500 mph hitting a stationary lamppost would be the same as a lamppost flying at 500 mph hitting a stationary
plane. If you know the damage that can be inflicted on a plane by a tiny bird, you may being to appreciate
this point. The wing, loaded with fuel, would have exploded in flames and the plane's trajectory would have
been affected. Plus at the speed of 500 mph, it could not have come closer than about 60 feet to the ground,
so the trajectory was not even aerodynamically possible. Check with pilots and aeronautical engineers, with
whom I have discussed all of this. In fact, Pilots obtained data from the NTSB that it insisted came from the
recorder for Flight 77, which had the plane on a different approach and far too high to hit any lampposts and
did not even impact the building. Check out Pilots for 9/11 Truth for their study of the government's own data.
In "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", I make many points that I did not make in the summary overview.
Just want to clarify something here
does this
The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory—flying at high speed barely above ground level—physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than about 60 feet of the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible.refer to ground effect? If so, it was pointed out in another thread that ground effect decreases with speed. It also decreases as the angle of attack decreases (or vice versa) and the impact would have been at a negative angle of attack. Both of these mean that ground effect would have been negligible. What do you think about those facts?
You didn't even answer my questions. I don't CARE about light posts, trajectory, or the data recorder. I didn't mention them. Please try to stay on topic. I asked if YOUR STATEMENT was referring to ground effect and stated that if so then according to rules of aerodynamics that ground effect would be negligible. So again, does your statement refer to ground effect? What do you think about the FACTS that show that ground effect would be negligible at high speed and a low angles of attack?
Ground effect is caused by induced drag which is highest at low speeds and high angles of attack. At high speeds and low angles of attack, induced drag and therefore ground effect, is negligible.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml
http://www.faatest.com/books/FLT/Chapter17/GroundEffect.htm
-
So your site claims that the collapse of the Twin Towers took 13-14 seconds? And it also admits,
Despite the availability of video evidence establishing lower bounds of total collapse times of
over 13 seconds for each of the towers, assertions that they collapsed in under ten seconds are
widespread. Collapse times of eight to ten seconds are common not only in literature of the skeptics,
but also in publications promoting the official explanation. A Scientific American article about a
2001 public meeting of engineers on the MIT campus in Cambridge, MA gives a figure of nine seconds.
And as David Greer has explained, even NIST set the figures at 9 and 11 seconds, for an average of
10. But far more important than this attempt to read events beneath a cloud of dust is that neither
of the buildings "collapsed", from which it follows that none of those times represent the time that
it took for them to collapse. They were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust,
as "New 9/11 Photos Released", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html, so dramatically displays.
No, there is a lot of misinformation out there. Notice I said the towers were destroyed in about
10 seconds, while he corrects me to say one fell in 9 and the other in 11 (9 + 11 + 20/2 = 10)!
Talk about splitting hairs! And I explicitly discuss the frames from the Pentagon cameras in my
Powerpoint presentation at http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/Buenos-Aires.html It's hard to show what you are
talking about in written words when so much of the evidence is photographic, as I also explain.
A truther site that shows the towers took considerably LONGER than 10 seconds each to collapse
How is that site misinformation?
First, not "my site". A site. I happen to agree with that conclusion but I am in no way affiliated with the site, nor do I agree with everything presented.
How does that answer my question? How is the site I posted which breaks the collapse down into half second intervals and clearly shows that they each took at least 13 seconds misinformation? I didn't ask about what other sites and sources may say.
And Dave Greer did NOT say that NIST said the collapses were 9 and 11 seconds, nor did NIST. They said the first exterior panels hit the ground in that time. That says NOTHING about how long the total collapse took.
Still wondering why YOU would claim the collapses took 10 seconds when the available evidence shows otherwise.
Chemtrails are back!
in Political Conspiracies
Posted · Edited by Matthew Lewis
IF they were spraying chemicals then they would reach the ground sometime but not immediately as every study regarding aerosols has shown and by the time they would, common sense says they would be so dissipated they would be nearly undetectable, but you didn't answer the question. If they are persisting and still in the air then how are they affect you on the ground at the same time miles away?
If it was a virus or bacteria that affected you, those take time to incubate. Why assume the source came immediately before symptoms?
You mention military, what about all the pictures and videos that show commercial craft leaving these trails? Or the programs like FlightAware or Flight Explorer that show they are commercial flights? What about the thousands of trails left by types of aircraft the military doesn't have?