Nerd wins challenge with 9/11 Truth physics

Episode 7.

Worth the watch.

She beat a NASA engineer

I was not familiar with the show, but I did find this episode kind of fun. While only recently posted to Vimeo, it was actually from back in season 1, airing on February 28, 2013:

Next, the free-fall acceleration of WTC7!

So she studied 9/11 physics and won - pretty cool. The NASA engineer came out last, actually. If only that had been a NIST engineer coming out last...

Hmmmm... How about a competition on explaining the observed free-fall acceleration of WTC7 for over 100 feet? A competition between 9/11-savvy physicists and engineers, versus NIST?

Thank you Danielle

Thing I liked about most, was -or IS - the complete confusion it throws at Pinocchio SUNDER's 'official' creatioNIST agnotology.

Put alongside World Trade ONE - which is a suggestion - the top 15 floors [even tho completely pulverized] speeding thru the lower 95, has it that the ball MUST punch its way totally thru every pane of fragile glass to the ground. Thats what 911 OCT physics presents ----> 'accelerating downward force as 'natural' [gravity] action : collapsing ALL in its path.

This little vid completely turns that presentation into the crap it is ! ; as fabrication. The ball 'gets' stopped ! Conservation of momentum.


Whoever set this up HAS to be a 911 truth advocate, right down to it being episode 7 ;) [ just being flip ]

Very good! I enjoyed reading that

And yes, it's a good little clip, conservation of momentum as it should be, not as NIST would have us think it is!

Bill Nye, Happy to refute official narratives

"Rubbing the football doesn't change the pressure, Nye said. He said to change the pressure you need a needle".

Ah if only Bill would be so bold as to call out Jerome Hauer on his science arm chair quarter-backing. Now that would get me to follow him on twitter.

The Science Calvary To The Rescue

"Neil deGrasse Tyson And NFL Football Maker Wilson Call Bull On Bill Belichick's Deflategate Excuse"

Neil deGrasse Tyson
"For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15% lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air".
3:46 PM - 26 Jan 2015

Wouldn't it be news worthy if 9/11 witness and mainstream science celeb Mr. Degrasse-Tyson was willing to stand up with the now 2,323 signatories of AE911 Truth Petition, calling BS on the official explanation of the 3 towers demise?

Belichick claimed “atmospheric conditions” may have caused balls to lose air pressure during his team's AFC Championship win over the Indianapolis Colts on Jan. 18.

More about Neal deGrasse on 9/11

Teachable moment?

(I typically cringe when I hear that 'teachable moment' cliché, but it seems like it might be apt here.)

As a Patriots fan of long standing--since long before they won anything--the experience of recent days has been what you might call 'morale-deflating;' and it's awkward having to agree that what they've been saying just isn't that credible. At least in the context of what's been reported. If it turns out to be confirmed, for example, that 11 out of 12 of their footballs were deflated by about the same amount, while the Colts balls were unchanged from what they were at the start of the game (which is what's basically implied in reports I've heard--though it might simply be that they had changed some, but still met specifications), then the 'atmospheric conditions' line of reasoning becomes ludicrous. Not to mention that, temperature-wise, there have been much more severe game-time conditions...and were there a number of balls found to be underinflated in those situations? Is the phenomenon alleged by Belichick known to have occurred anywhere before, during bad-weather (or cold weather) football games? None that I'm aware of.

But might such basic questioning also apply to something of a truly serious nature? Something that resulted in upheavals in foreign and domestic policy, for example (if you see where I'm going)? Might not the contrast between the Patriots' footballs and those of their opponents (as well as those of other teams playing in similar or worse weather conditions) have a parallel in that between towers 1, 2, and 7 and all the other steel-framed skyscrapers that endured much worse fires? Does not this contrast--together with the speed and symmetry of the buildings' descents (as with the alleged uniformity in the drop in air-pressure in the Pats' footballs)--suggest some prior, conscious, deliberate 'tampering' with the buildings, just as such tampering appears to be the most sensible explanation in the case of 'deflate-gate'?

(And maybe the 'tampering' analogy could be applied to other, non-physical aspects of 9/11 as well--pretty much anything where 'coincidence theory' or 'incompetence theory' doesn't hold water. e.g., pre-9/11 terror investigations, air defenses on 9/11, etc.)

People capable of seeing the problems in the one case should also be capable of seeing them with respect to the other--if only they could be brought to shift their attention to it. If I had any experience in editing video, I'd like to do a 'mash-up' showing the attempted explanations at the Patriots' recent press conferences together with footage of officials (e.g., NIST) pushing similarly plausibility-stretching explanations for what happened on 9/11 (or of Bush stammering out a response to a 9/11 question, bad body language and all, at a press conference). Might someone with such experience be up to it? Just an idea.