Comments on: Actor/Comedian Hal Sparks Speaks Out In Support of 9/11 Truth

By: motorartist

motorartist — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:52:54 +0000

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.

By: mooners40

mooners40 — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:03:51 +0000

@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 reckon – take your head out of your ass and read -

By: mooners40

mooners40 — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:52:26 +0000

@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

By: motorartist

motorartist — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:35:20 +0000

Sorry But, The right 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.

By: mooners40

mooners40 — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:27:49 +0000

@motorartist watch?v=W5sljqUnUQs

By: motorartist

motorartist — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:06:23 +0000

Here is a small 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 hurt. 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.

By: motorartist

motorartist — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:39:07 +0000

More videos from the children? Have you read the NIST report and do you know it? I have and I do.

By: mooners40

mooners40 — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:22:39 +0000

@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 reckon about it – ‘a new kind of collapse’ i wonder why- lol

By: mooners40

mooners40 — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:29:57 +0000

@motorartist NIST lol
and i suppose you reckon 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 place 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 excellent for you unless it’s the official lie? The commission report is a joke – what proof is there that Bin Laden did it?

By: mooners40

mooners40 — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:17:38 +0000

@motorartist grown-ups read books – you should try it – if you’re allowed to