Science is great, when it's used to tell the truth. Even a relative truth is better than a blatant lie.
I just watched another excellent video by Jonathan H. Cole with experiments proving NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) lied in its 9/11 reports. They committed blatant scientific fraud.
This 10-minute video is a must-see for anyone interested in the future. Why? Because American policy is based on 9/11, and the government lied! People continue to die because of 9/11. Liberty is dying because of 9/11. American financial irresponsibility is based partly on 9/11 (overspending at an accelerating pace -- a bubble that will pop with disastrous results for planet Earth).
9/11 Experiments: The Arbitrator of Competing Hypotheses
This isn't "conspiracy theory." The government did enough of that already, feeding us the OBL theory. This is simple, scientific fact.
Why would government scientists commit scientific fraud? This might open the door to some conspiracy theories, but that doesn't help.
A better question, now that we know the government is lying about 9/11, is what should we do about it?
Get angry? Riot? Start a new government? Boycott? Try to fix it by entering politics? Bury our heads and forget about it?
Isn't it hard to breath with your head buried under the sand?
Right, because *knowing* the government lied about 9/11, apparently on the strength of a ten minute video, is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw.
That video wasn't clear nor was the guy's hypothesis proven.
There are too many variables that his experimentation couldn't prove anyway.
True, conspiracy theorists always claim their conspiracy theories are not conspiracy theories.
It is very sad to see believers not only distort reality for what it is, but go well beyond the ridiculous and absurd to fallaciously and inexcusably distort science and that which they have no understanding.
This is my only response:
If you are all so sure it's nonsense, why not enlighten the rest of us as to exactly why you think this way? Analyse the argument, and rebut the points made. Not "but somebody would have talked" or "why would the government want to kill their own people?", irrelevant buzz-phrases that don't address the argument at hand.
The biggest part of the experiment that is wrong is they drop a separate object on top of another object from a distance. That is not how the towers collapsed. All the towers floors are connected, the top of the building was not lifted off and dropped onto the structure. The theory of Newton is not the type of force in play here, but it is more along the lines of inertia.
By the way, the cue ball hitting the eight ball was cute but a joke, . Hitting the cue ball with the proper english can make the cue ball travel completely across the pool table, not come to a stop in a few inches as shown in the video. Striking the cue ball with different english evertime will yield a different result, the cue ball will come to rest in many different locations on the table. What lesson does this show us, that people can pick, choose, skew and spin data into any conclusion to attempt to further their agenda.
I've been poking around in the conspiracy business. A lot of money to be made from gullible folk.
Hagman and Hagman have a fine line of products in the 'Giants' and 'Mighty Men of Old' niche.
I suppose it's never too late to cash in on the murder of couple of thousand people in New York...
The guy who made that video has a pretty weak grasp of both physics and the experimental method. For a good analysis get the Popular Mechanics special issue on 9/11.
Popular Mechanics? You've got to be joking. You have a pretty weak grasp of logic.
Oh hey, I just thought of another response!
More NIST fraud:
There are a multitude of websites that debunk the 911 truth movement.
And there are a multitude of websites that debunk the debunkers.
Here's one video that knocks it out of the ballpark.
The funny thing about the debunkers is that they invariable give alternative theories, but never debunk anything. An alternate theory is only that -- a theory.
Building 7 collapsed at perfect free fall acceleration for the first 8 floors. That's a fact admitted by NIST. But ignored by NIST is the fact that such perfect free fall means zero resistance. Steel beams NEVER offer zero resistance unless controlled demolition is involved.
I wonder if you could ever debunk that. Simple physics.
If a meteor lands on your head, it's going to slow down a tiny bit, because it has to perform the work of crushing your otherwise empty skull. Now, does some of the simple logic start to sink in?
A small group of determined extremists with over a decade of planning and practice managed to strike us on our own turf?
IT MUST BE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION
And, you're here to tell us about physics? The guy who tells us Jesus opened up a boulevard of gridlocked traffic just for YOU?
Hilarious, every picture shows the beams falling faster than the debris cloud, which is falling faster than the building itself. Yes, simple physics.
by Rod Martin Jr4 years ago
I've corresponded and chatted with a number of Americans who think the 9/11 Truth movement has been thoroughly "debunked." But when pressed for details on the source of their belief, they can't provide any....
by sannyasinman6 years ago
. . and that the official explanation is a physical impossibility. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXeNawH … r_embedded
by Rod Martin Jr3 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbFldtLnmc8One expert after another goes on record, laying their career on the line, to state, categorically that WTC7 could not have come down except for controlled demolition. Since it...
by Keith Ham3 years ago
I've heard it all a thousand times and more. The this, the that, the whatever, the evil organizations. In fact, just moments ago I received a comment on how FB was invented by the CIA, isn't that crazy? I know some of...
by PersecutionAvenue3 years ago
For a while now, the underground conspiratorial theory about the secret worldwide domination at the hands of free masons, satanist, or other subversive- societal groups( the specific group changes per theory) has been...
by Specialkizza6 years ago
I ask this question to all readers and myself. I ask that everyone who frequents this topic to please reply. Feel free to elaborate and converse. Thank You. Its both for me. I can't remember when I felt more passionate...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.