This entry was posted
on Monday, February 22nd, 2010 at 6:46 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
25 Responses to “Actor/Comedian Hal Sparks Speaks Out In Support of 9/11 Truth”
there are paid people posting comments, anti-”conspiracy” comments are mostly from these shills, the American people are not all stupid, we know that building 7 did not get hit and still fell perfectly in its footprint
@motorartist and your ‘energy’ ejects girders laterally hundreds of feet from a low height but according to you is from a great height- hhmm close your eyes- very basic science eh height and using your eyes. Energy/momentum? What was your retort / refutation of the vid i posted of Chandler’s ? nothing – you can’t dispute the truth – your arrogance is only equalled by your ignorance and desire to continue it
I know you are desperate to equate the unjustified war in Iraq with 9/11 conspiracy theories, but some of us know better. We don’t support Bush or the war and we don’t buy the conspiracy theorist claptrap, we are not suckers as you are. Yes I miss typed Ergo, but you thought conservation of energy was conservation of momentum. You spelled it right but didn’t understand the basic science.
@motorartist fake wars and false flag attacks are no laughing matter when America has the excuse to attack any country it likes and use 9/11as the reason – 9/11 was faked for that reason- and Afghanistan is about oil and opium – and Iraq was about oil and imperialism under the guise of ‘liberation’ – no one was liberated – you have a high IQ? Ego is right – but the word you sought was ‘ergo’
I don’t think we should be in Iraq, I am quite liberal, but I am also well educated and have a high IQ. Ego I do not buy obvious bunk from people with an agenda, be it left of right. And I do not treat stupid people well, my bad. Today is your turn is all. So by all means believe in UFOs JFK plots, chemtrails and fake Moon landings, And guys like will point fingers at you and laugh and 20 years from now we will still be laughing.
@motorartist nothing but self -importance and empty arrogance – no retort – pathetic – and you think an attack on a country for no reason has no meaning? brainwashed dolt
And yet by all measures I am smarter that you. Why is that? Why is it stupid people buy conspiracy theorist bunk? Yes Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 it was a conspiracy theory sold to stupid conservatives by Bush, I knew that.
@motorartist ENERGY – just saying the word trajectory does not give it the energy and enough force to fly sideways- graaavity pulls things down does it not? or has that changed too in your delusional world of NEW physics coz the t.v said so – you’re clueless- and as i said ,the huge girders are ejected near the bottom of the towers- not the top – think about it – and ‘a small amount of sideways thrust’? From what? Gravity? You just confirmed controlled demolition because no other force is there
Here is another lesson. If you stood at the base of the WTC and tried to throw a ball and hit building 7, you would find it near impossible. You would need to not only put enough energy into the ball to reach the target but also put it in an upward trajectory to overcome gravity. NOW go to the top of the WTC and it become quite easy, a small amount of sideways thrust and you put the downward pull of gravity to work for you. trajectory.
@motorartist conspiracy theorist sucker? the first fallacy is that there are never any conspiracies – check history. Pearl harbour was allowed to happen – the gulf of Tonkin was a lie to start a war for profit – hhmm where has that happened recently? WMDs in Iraq , a country with zero to do with 9/11? A pre-emptive strike on a defenseless country is tantamount to the Nazi war crimes- they hanged for less. You are clearly brainwashed to not question and get truth from the t.v – physics? lol
@motorartist as per the vid i posted heavy girders are visibly ejected sideways – and not from the top – are you brainwashed? try using your eyes – not into own footprint? wtc7 was a classic style -demo – the towers were top down in waves – what can you say about the vid i posted there einstein , and conservation of energy? you have no answer and don’t want to know the facts about 9/11 coz you like to think that governments don’t do that sort of thing – try looking at history and learning
I do read, and a lot of stuff far beyond your comprehension level. That is why I can school you on physics here. I realize like most conspiracy theorist sucker you are young and not very bright, That is just an unfortunate fact of being a truther, low IQ, mediocre education in science. Poor critical thinking skills.
Controlled demolition companies use cutting charges because they can be controlled to the fraction of a second dropping a building into it’s own footprint. Something you did not see on 9/11. As sideways energy look up “trajectory”, it only takes a small amount of energy to push a beam sideways when it’s at the top of a 1300ft building. Try educating yourself.
@motorartist NIST lol
and i suppose you think the simulation is real? they even said that collapse due to fire had a low probability of occurrence – yet you believe what you’re told by a government cover-up? Who put the molten metal there weeks after ,Bin Laden? You should grow up and read some books on the subject about which you purport to be so informed. Reading any good for you unless it’s the official lie? The commission report is a joke – what proof is there that Bin Laden did it?
@motorartist energy? what energy ejects metal sideways gravity? Let’s hear your debunking of physics einstein – i see all controlled demolition firms have stopped using explosives now – they just set a few fires and the buildings drop like stones – savings all round and why is it that wtc7 collapsed as it did? First one ver , with no visible fires – and even buildings that are towering infernos don’t fall because of fires – Hmmm let’s think about it – ‘a new kind of collapse’ i wonder why- lol
Here is a little fact of physics.. No structure will stand forever, the effect of the own mass and the stored gravitational pull on that mass will conspire to bring them down. You don’t need explosives to do this natural deterioration of the steel will do this over time. OR, structural trauma can do it too, like fire or impact damage. You can use explosives but the likelihood you could pull off such a complex thing in a building filled with 1000s of people is ludicrous.
Sorry But, The correct physics is “Conservation of ENERGY” FACT: all the energy needed to bring the towers down was stored in the towers as potential gravitational energy, since no energy is lost and no extra energy is required to bring them down. Fact is I am smarter that you or Griffin, I just proved my point by correcting your mistake of what is basic high school science. When you grow up you may also grow a brain, but for now you are just being a stupid YouTube kiddy.
@jetboy33 ha ha – show me a photo of it burning like an inferno – and with 25% of its side taken away – everyone of troofer points debunked? You’re clearly not someone who reads books – the t.v is not the truth son – read some books on 9/11 and realise that the criminals are in the government and get on the right side
@motorartist you’re an ignoramus – and Griffin’s 9/11 books are full of facts that you don’t want to hear – physics book? The law of conservation of momentum ? Why was no resistance offered from a massive structure? Hmm let me think – take your head out of your ass and read -
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:28 pm
there are paid people posting comments, anti-”conspiracy” comments are mostly from these shills, the American people are not all stupid, we know that building 7 did not get hit and still fell perfectly in its footprint
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:30 pm
watch?v=W5sljqUnUQs – the other link doesn’t work – watch this please people
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:07 pm
@motorartist and your ‘energy’ ejects girders laterally hundreds of feet from a low height but according to you is from a great height- hhmm close your eyes- very basic science eh height and using your eyes. Energy/momentum? What was your retort / refutation of the vid i posted of Chandler’s ? nothing – you can’t dispute the truth – your arrogance is only equalled by your ignorance and desire to continue it
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:13 pm
buildings dont commit suicide folks. wake up.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:01 pm
I know you are desperate to equate the unjustified war in Iraq with 9/11 conspiracy theories, but some of us know better. We don’t support Bush or the war and we don’t buy the conspiracy theorist claptrap, we are not suckers as you are. Yes I miss typed Ergo, but you thought conservation of energy was conservation of momentum. You spelled it right but didn’t understand the basic science.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:11 pm
@motorartist fake wars and false flag attacks are no laughing matter when America has the excuse to attack any country it likes and use 9/11as the reason – 9/11 was faked for that reason- and Afghanistan is about oil and opium – and Iraq was about oil and imperialism under the guise of ‘liberation’ – no one was liberated – you have a high IQ? Ego is right – but the word you sought was ‘ergo’
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:24 pm
I don’t think we should be in Iraq, I am quite liberal, but I am also well educated and have a high IQ. Ego I do not buy obvious bunk from people with an agenda, be it left of right. And I do not treat stupid people well, my bad. Today is your turn is all. So by all means believe in UFOs JFK plots, chemtrails and fake Moon landings, And guys like will point fingers at you and laugh and 20 years from now we will still be laughing.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:59 pm
@motorartist nothing but self -importance and empty arrogance – no retort – pathetic – and you think an attack on a country for no reason has no meaning? brainwashed dolt
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:58 pm
And yet by all measures I am smarter that you. Why is that? Why is it stupid people buy conspiracy theorist bunk? Yes Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 it was a conspiracy theory sold to stupid conservatives by Bush, I knew that.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:00 pm
@motorartist ENERGY – just saying the word trajectory does not give it the energy and enough force to fly sideways- graaavity pulls things down does it not? or has that changed too in your delusional world of NEW physics coz the t.v said so – you’re clueless- and as i said ,the huge girders are ejected near the bottom of the towers- not the top – think about it – and ‘a small amount of sideways thrust’? From what? Gravity? You just confirmed controlled demolition because no other force is there
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Here is another lesson. If you stood at the base of the WTC and tried to throw a ball and hit building 7, you would find it near impossible. You would need to not only put enough energy into the ball to reach the target but also put it in an upward trajectory to overcome gravity. NOW go to the top of the WTC and it become quite easy, a small amount of sideways thrust and you put the downward pull of gravity to work for you. trajectory.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:08 am
@motorartist conspiracy theorist sucker? the first fallacy is that there are never any conspiracies – check history. Pearl harbour was allowed to happen – the gulf of Tonkin was a lie to start a war for profit – hhmm where has that happened recently? WMDs in Iraq , a country with zero to do with 9/11? A pre-emptive strike on a defenseless country is tantamount to the Nazi war crimes- they hanged for less. You are clearly brainwashed to not question and get truth from the t.v – physics? lol
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:15 am
@motorartist as per the vid i posted heavy girders are visibly ejected sideways – and not from the top – are you brainwashed? try using your eyes – not into own footprint? wtc7 was a classic style -demo – the towers were top down in waves – what can you say about the vid i posted there einstein , and conservation of energy? you have no answer and don’t want to know the facts about 9/11 coz you like to think that governments don’t do that sort of thing – try looking at history and learning
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:59 am
I do read, and a lot of stuff far beyond your comprehension level. That is why I can school you on physics here. I realize like most conspiracy theorist sucker you are young and not very bright, That is just an unfortunate fact of being a truther, low IQ, mediocre education in science. Poor critical thinking skills.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:33 am
Controlled demolition companies use cutting charges because they can be controlled to the fraction of a second dropping a building into it’s own footprint. Something you did not see on 9/11. As sideways energy look up “trajectory”, it only takes a small amount of energy to push a beam sideways when it’s at the top of a 1300ft building. Try educating yourself.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:17 am
@motorartist grown-ups read books – you should try it – if you’re allowed to
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:29 am
@motorartist NIST lol
and i suppose you think the simulation is real? they even said that collapse due to fire had a low probability of occurrence – yet you believe what you’re told by a government cover-up? Who put the molten metal there weeks after ,Bin Laden? You should grow up and read some books on the subject about which you purport to be so informed. Reading any good for you unless it’s the official lie? The commission report is a joke – what proof is there that Bin Laden did it?
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:22 am
@motorartist energy? what energy ejects metal sideways gravity? Let’s hear your debunking of physics einstein – i see all controlled demolition firms have stopped using explosives now – they just set a few fires and the buildings drop like stones – savings all round and why is it that wtc7 collapsed as it did? First one ver , with no visible fires – and even buildings that are towering infernos don’t fall because of fires – Hmmm let’s think about it – ‘a new kind of collapse’ i wonder why- lol
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:39 am
More videos from the children? Have you read the NIST report and do you understand it? I have and I do.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:06 am
Here is a little fact of physics.. No structure will stand forever, the effect of the own mass and the stored gravitational pull on that mass will conspire to bring them down. You don’t need explosives to do this natural deterioration of the steel will do this over time. OR, structural trauma can do it too, like fire or impact damage. You can use explosives but the likelihood you could pull off such a complex thing in a building filled with 1000s of people is ludicrous.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:27 am
@motorartist watch?v=W5sljqUnUQs
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:35 am
Sorry But, The correct physics is “Conservation of ENERGY” FACT: all the energy needed to bring the towers down was stored in the towers as potential gravitational energy, since no energy is lost and no extra energy is required to bring them down. Fact is I am smarter that you or Griffin, I just proved my point by correcting your mistake of what is basic high school science. When you grow up you may also grow a brain, but for now you are just being a stupid YouTube kiddy.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:52 am
@jetboy33 ha ha – show me a photo of it burning like an inferno – and with 25% of its side taken away – everyone of troofer points debunked? You’re clearly not someone who reads books – the t.v is not the truth son – read some books on 9/11 and realise that the criminals are in the government and get on the right side
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:03 am
@motorartist you’re an ignoramus – and Griffin’s 9/11 books are full of facts that you don’t want to hear – physics book? The law of conservation of momentum ? Why was no resistance offered from a massive structure? Hmm let me think – take your head out of your ass and read -
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:52 am
Try reading a physics book and avoided the YouTube crap. Buying a conspiracy because you saw a video and it had some cool music is for children.