It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# if the muslim threat of terrorism is so real then why..

page: 5
22
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:41 AM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Did you even read the link I posted? It skipped video sensationalism and literally posted the math saying you are wrong. I'm sorry, but math trumps a youtube video ANY day.

Here is all the math and physics that you like to ignore for you conspiracy narrative:

Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.

Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.

For more analysis of the buildin

Same link, but I'm reposting it anyways.

and u just assume he is correct in his equations? the buildings did fall in less than 10 seconds , it fell at freefall for a good portion of this time, u have no understanding of physics going by what ur saying.

watch the video.

never mind that the flames werent even hot enough to melt steel, even if they weakend the structure only the top floors would fall SIDEWAYS onto the street not straight down through 70+ floors acting as if there was only air below the top portion of the tower.

go back to school dude, this is stuff i learned on day 1.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:44 AM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Except I just posted math that doesn't rely on a video to paint a narrative. I don't care how long the video is, it is wrong. Disprove the math I posted then we'll talk. Stop letting youtube posters speak for you and actually do some REAL research. Then maybe you'll learn some real truth.

so 1 bloggers equations amounts to the laws of physics bieng wrong, ok sure.

the video explains in childrens terms , since u obviously have no idea what ur talking about

try drop an empty can of coke onto a brick what happens? nothing

ame principle, i honestly feel bad for you if this is how bad americas understanding of physics is, then again it is one of the worst countries to get an education.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:47 AM

originally posted by: muckleduck

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Except I just posted math that doesn't rely on a video to paint a narrative. I don't care how long the video is, it is wrong. Disprove the math I posted then we'll talk. Stop letting youtube posters speak for you and actually do some REAL research. Then maybe you'll learn some real truth.

so 1 bloggers equations amounts to the laws of physics bieng wrong, ok sure.

the video explains in childrens terms , since u obviously have no idea what ur talking about

try drop an empty can of coke onto a brick what happens? nothing

ame principle, i honestly feel bad for you if this is how bad americas understanding of physics is, then again it is one of the worst countries to get an education.

not to mention these 3 buildings all in the same day, all 3 steel structures fell from just "fires" , the first time in history a steel building has collapsed from fire.

jeez i wonder why that could be, whats the chances of 3 planes getting succesfully hijacked , then succesfully flown into their targets on the same day in the same location without bieng intercepted in the "most secure airspace in the world"

empire statse building was hit by a plane in ww2, aviation furel on board did not cause the building to collapse, instead they put the fires out and rebuilt...funny eh

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:47 AM

originally posted by: muckleduck
and u just assume he is correct in his equations? the buildings did fall in less than 10 seconds , it fell at freefall for a good portion of this time, u have no understanding of physics going by what ur saying.

Well if he is incorrect, it should be a simple matter to work through his calculations to prove it so, no? Though I don't expect you to do that.

watch the video.

I can't watch videos at work and I don't trust youtube videos as valid evidence. Videos can be edited to show any narrative you want, they are a confirmation biased person's wet dream, and I see you have bought it all hook line and sinker. Which is funny, since you are telling me to go back to school for not believing a youtube video. MY schools taught me how to properly vet and analyze sources for bias and credibility (yes youtube videos don't count as credible). I guess yours didn't?

never mind that the flames werent even hot enough to melt steel, even if they weakend the structure only the top floors would fall SIDEWAYS onto the street not straight down through 70+ floors acting as if there was only air below the top portion of the tower.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The World Trade Center

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

go back to school dude, this is stuff i learned on day 1.

More derisive insults. If your school taught you 9/11 conspiracy as a fact then your school is severely dumb. I'd rather go to school that teaches REAL physics. Still waiting for you to debunk all that math I posted, Mr. School Educated.
edit on 22-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:51 AM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: muckleduck
and u just assume he is correct in his equations? the buildings did fall in less than 10 seconds , it fell at freefall for a good portion of this time, u have no understanding of physics going by what ur saying.

Well if he is incorrect, it should be a simple matter to work through his calculations to prove it so, no? Though I don't expect you to do that.

watch the video.

I can't watch videos at work and I don't trust youtube videos as valid evidence. Videos can be edited to show any narrative you want, they are a confirmation biased person's wet dream, and I see you have bought it all hook line and sinker. Which is funny, since you are telling me to go back to school for not believing a youtube video.

never mind that the flames werent even hot enough to melt steel, even if they weakend the structure only the top floors would fall SIDEWAYS onto the street not straight down through 70+ floors acting as if there was only air below the top portion of the tower.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The World Trade Center

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

go back to school dude, this is stuff i learned on day 1.

More derisive insults. If your school taught you 9/11 conspiracy as a fact then your school is severely dumb. I'd rather go to school that teaches REAL physics. Still waiting for you to debunk all that math I posted, Mr. School Educated.

lol i feel like i shouldnt waste my time responding, i dont need to go through his equations, watching the way the towers fell tells me everythng i need to know.

seriously this is 1st day physics.

i dont need to go through his equations when no self respecting physicist who likes their job will accept the offical story as truth.

my guess uve never studied physics in depth and are out of your league debating it, thats how it seems anyways.

the only narrative in the video is mainstream physics.

maybe america has different physics to the rest of the world, u seem to have very different history books aswell...

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:53 AM

originally posted by: muckleduck
so 1 bloggers equations amounts to the laws of physics bieng wrong, ok sure.

Ok then, work through the math and show that is the case. It should be a simple thing for you to accomplish if he is wrong. That's what's great about math. If the calculations are wrong, then you'll get the wrong answer. So hop to it. Deny ignorance.

the video explains in childrens terms , since u obviously have no idea what ur talking about

The video is just one in a long line of videos trying to paint a lie as the valid narrative.

try drop an empty can of coke onto a brick what happens? nothing

What the hell does this have to do with anything?

ame principle, i honestly feel bad for you if this is how bad americas understanding of physics is, then again it is one of the worst countries to get an education.

You know, your grammar gives you away as someone who ISN'T school educated, "ur", no possessive apostrophes, terrible formatting, etc. I don't like to be that guy being the grammar nazi, but you are calling me out on my school education, it would be nice if you could demonstrate some of that knowledge yourself.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:56 AM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: muckleduck
so 1 bloggers equations amounts to the laws of physics bieng wrong, ok sure.

Ok then, work through the math and show that is the case. It should be a simple thing for you to accomplish if he is wrong. That's what's great about math. If the calculations are wrong, then you'll get the wrong answer. So hop to it. Deny ignorance.

the video explains in childrens terms , since u obviously have no idea what ur talking about

The video is just one in a long line of videos trying to paint a lie as the valid narrative.

try drop an empty can of coke onto a brick what happens? nothing

What the hell does this have to do with anything?

ame principle, i honestly feel bad for you if this is how bad americas understanding of physics is, then again it is one of the worst countries to get an education.

You know, your grammar gives you away as someone who ISN'T school educated, "ur", no possessive apostrophes, terrible formatting, etc. I don't like to be that guy being the grammar nazi, but you are calling me out on my school education, it would be nice if you could demonstrate some of that knowledge yourself.

the fact that he is guessing at everything kind of gives it away, i can say anything weighs whatever amount to make it suit my equation lol.

when he uses terms like "about" when describing energy it all matters, even if he is a few off it will change the outcome.

im a qualified electrician so my understanding of physics is great.

thats why im just sitting here laughin dude, i cant believe u literally think a building falls like that..

oh now ur attaking my grammar on the internet? seriously u must be running out of ideas, too much bieng proved wrong now u have to go as low as insulting how i type on the internet? this isnt a written exam and im typing things out fast, do u know that using shorthand abreviations saves time in typing?

think before u speak.
edit on 22-12-2014 by muckleduck because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:57 AM

originally posted by: muckleduck
lol i feel like i shouldnt waste my time responding, i dont need to go through his equations, watching the way the towers fell tells me everythng i need to know.

Confirmation bias confirmed.

seriously this is 1st day physics.

First day physics is Newton's laws of motion. The principles involved with this are a BIT more advanced than the three laws of motion. Though it explains a lot if you think the physics can be simplified to "day 1 physics".

i dont need to go through his equations when no self respecting physicist who likes their job will accept the offical story as truth.

Of course not. Why debunk the opposing sides arguments. That way you can sit back and claim superiority without actually proving anything.

my guess uve never studied physics in depth and are out of your league debating it, thats how it seems anyways.

My guess is that you have a HUGE confirmation bias and because of it are very insulting and defensive to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

the only narrative in the video is mainstream physics.

How do you know? How much physics have YOU personally studied?

maybe america has different physics to the rest of the world, u seem to have very different history books aswell...

Says the guy who can't be bothered to debunk math in favor of a youtube video. I mean that is just LOL worthy.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:59 AM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: muckleduck
lol i feel like i shouldnt waste my time responding, i dont need to go through his equations, watching the way the towers fell tells me everythng i need to know.

Confirmation bias confirmed.

seriously this is 1st day physics.

First day physics is Newton's laws of motion. The principles involved with this are a BIT more advanced than the three laws of motion. Though it explains a lot if you think the physics can be simplified to "day 1 physics".

i dont need to go through his equations when no self respecting physicist who likes their job will accept the offical story as truth.

Of course not. Why debunk the opposing sides arguments. That way you can sit back and claim superiority without actually proving anything.

my guess uve never studied physics in depth and are out of your league debating it, thats how it seems anyways.

My guess is that you have a HUGE confirmation bias and because of it are very insulting and defensive to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

the only narrative in the video is mainstream physics.

How do you know? How much physics have YOU personally studied?

maybe america has different physics to the rest of the world, u seem to have very different history books aswell...

Says the guy who can't be bothered to debunk math in favor of a youtube video. I mean that is just LOL worthy.

the video itself debunks everything u said, not my fault ur too dense to understand or even bother watching it, have more qualification in physics than u i can guarentee that.

im so glad im not american.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:59 AM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

You missed the point the poster was making. What caused these people to become assholes? Is it previous terrorism? Maybe their parents were blown up in a drone strike or they were mistreated racially by some military. It is a HUGE circle of violence. Even the most hardened terrorists have loving family and by writing them off with killing the terrorist, you are saying they are guilty by association.

Anyone who tells you that a country needs to attack preemptively to prevent the other country from attacking is lying through their teeth.

You are 100% right that this "is a huge circle of violence"...but the origins of that cycle are from within the Muslim cultures themselves.

The Taliban had taken over, and were terrorizing the Afghan people with their brand of Islam, long before America was involved.

Sunnis and Shiites attack and mass murder each other on a regular basis without any outside impetus.

Boko Harim does not kidnap little girls and turn them into sex slaves because of U.S. Foreign Policy.

The Pakistani Taliban's goals to overthrow the Pakistani Government and install their version of Sharia Law is not driven by American drone strikes against their leadership.

ISIS did not begin their wholesale massacre of men, women and children, across a full spectrum of ideological beliefs because Christians/Jews/Shiites/etc. were harming them...

The problem is that these kinds of groups (whether or not mainstream Muslims consider them representative of their faith)...commit acts of violence, and then when people stand up to them, they use that as justification for more acts of violence.

But for people like these, it is never the answer to just sit back and let them continue on their murderous way...those of this ilk never stop until they are stopped.

The vast majority of us (including Muslims) would just like to live our lives in peace. Unfortunately, there are always those who want want power and control - and who are prepared to commit all manner of atrocities to achieve their goals. Standing idly by while they - whoever they are, and whatever rationale they use to justify their action (religion, nationalism, redress, etc.) - will never be the answer to achieving peace.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:00 AM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: muckleduck
lol i feel like i shouldnt waste my time responding, i dont need to go through his equations, watching the way the towers fell tells me everythng i need to know.

Confirmation bias confirmed.

seriously this is 1st day physics.

First day physics is Newton's laws of motion. The principles involved with this are a BIT more advanced than the three laws of motion. Though it explains a lot if you think the physics can be simplified to "day 1 physics".

i dont need to go through his equations when no self respecting physicist who likes their job will accept the offical story as truth.

Of course not. Why debunk the opposing sides arguments. That way you can sit back and claim superiority without actually proving anything.

my guess uve never studied physics in depth and are out of your league debating it, thats how it seems anyways.

My guess is that you have a HUGE confirmation bias and because of it are very insulting and defensive to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

the only narrative in the video is mainstream physics.

How do you know? How much physics have YOU personally studied?

maybe america has different physics to the rest of the world, u seem to have very different history books aswell...

Says the guy who can't be bothered to debunk math in favor of a youtube video. I mean that is just LOL worthy.

says the guy who takes a bloggers equations as gospel as a means to debunk physics. LOL

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:03 AM

I don't believe you. You haven't demonstrated any competency in physics in this thread. You haven't worked through the math which is staring you in the face saying you are wrong and just dismiss it because it doesn't agree with you. That isn't college educated. That is internet research educated, which is lol worthy. Looking at your grammar, you haven't even demonstrated a high school level of knowledge actually.
edit on 22-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:04 AM

My blogger provided MATH from a physicist to say you are wrong. Math that you can, personally, work through to see if he is right or not. But you don't want to do that, because you are scared he is right. If you are SOOO educated in physics like you claim, it should be no big deal to work through the math. Since you know, as someone educated in physics, that physics is VERY math heavy.
edit on 22-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:05 AM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So now we start with the ad hominem attacks. You are par for the course with the truther movement. All your "evidence" is from youtube videos and when someone calls you on it, you resort to insults and derisive behavior. How about disproving the MATH that I posted?

The day I believe a youtube video over math is the day I've given up on critical thinking altogether. That's like posting Facebook as a valid source. Lol. Actually, it may be worse.

my mnd was made up as soon as the towers fell straight down. buildings dont fall like that and if u think thats how a building collapses without aid of demolition then you are more deluded than i thought.

the video doesnt paint ay narrative other than explaining in simple terms the laws of physics and what happened that day.

i debunked your maths with that video alone even though i dont have to, ask any physicist to read thru the official story and see what their conclusion is.

anyone reading this with a childs understanding of physics will see how wrong u are.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:06 AM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

My blogger provided MATH from a physicist to say you are wrong. Math that you can, personally, work through to see if he is right or not. But you don't want to do that, because you are scared he is right.

its not math when he is just guessing at the weights and energy etc. god do u not know anything about how equations work? i could write down anything that fits an answer i want.

your right, critical thinkin is right out the window.!

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:07 AM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I don't believe you. You haven't demonstrated any competency in physics in this thread. You haven't worked through the math which is staring you in the face saying you are wrong and just dismiss it because it doesn't agree with you. That isn't college educated. That is internet research educated, which is lol worthy. Looking at your grammar, you haven't even demonstrated a high school level of knowledge actually.

i dont doubt the equations will come out correct in the answer, what u dont seem to grasp is he is GUESSING at the variables.

this doesnt even stand as proof of anything, just makes me more embarassed for you.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:08 AM

originally posted by: muckleduck

my mnd was made up as soon as the towers fell straight down. buildings dont fall like that and if u think thats how a building collapses without aid of demolition then you are more deluded than i thought.

the video doesnt paint ay narrative other than explaining in simple terms the laws of physics and what happened that day.

Have you verified those claims yet? I mean your first sentence SCREAMS confirmation bias so to me that looks like you will readily believe anything that supports your view.

i debunked your maths with that video alone even though i dont have to, ask any physicist to read thru the official story and see what their conclusion is.

AGAIN in the REAL world of debate Youtube video !> Math at proving things.

anyone reading this with a childs understanding of physics will see how wrong u are.

I doubt that.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:09 AM

originally posted by: muckleduck

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I don't believe you. You haven't demonstrated any competency in physics in this thread. You haven't worked through the math which is staring you in the face saying you are wrong and just dismiss it because it doesn't agree with you. That isn't college educated. That is internet research educated, which is lol worthy. Looking at your grammar, you haven't even demonstrated a high school level of knowledge actually.

i dont doubt the equations will come out correct in the answer, what u dont seem to grasp is he is GUESSING at the variables.

Yes he is, but he is being conservative on the values. Using numbers that are less than what they really are. Then he explains at the end of his post that a REAL calculation to determine the time it took the towers to fall would take WEEKS of advanced computer simulations to get right. A 1 minute youtube video isn't going to sum that up.

this doesnt even stand as proof of anything, just makes me more embarassed for you.

Says the guy with his foot in his mouth.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:12 AM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: muckleduck

my mnd was made up as soon as the towers fell straight down. buildings dont fall like that and if u think thats how a building collapses without aid of demolition then you are more deluded than i thought.

the video doesnt paint ay narrative other than explaining in simple terms the laws of physics and what happened that day.

Have you verified those claims yet? I mean your first sentence SCREAMS confirmation bias so to me that looks like you will readily believe anything that supports your view.

i debunked your maths with that video alone even though i dont have to, ask any physicist to read thru the official story and see what their conclusion is.

AGAIN in the REAL world of debate Youtube video !> Math at proving things.

anyone reading this with a childs understanding of physics will see how wrong u are.

I doubt that.

if u want a serious debate that u will lose then be my guest.

the maths u provide from the blogger are GUESSES , not fact.

uve debunked nothing so far yet u sit on a high horse?

im an electrician, physics is part of my everyday life, what is it you do?

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:12 AM

And another thing...why don't they target policy makers, LEO, and officials here?

I realise there are more of the public to choose from, but in the final analysis people at a fruit and veg market, or browsing a shopping centre are hardly going to get the decision makers to change policy is it.

Taking out half the cabinet would have more effects from a terrorists point of view, either from a propaganda view or perhaps forcing policy changes, as would blowing up council buildings, Police stations, corporate boards, weapons makers and other high profile targets with suicide bombers etc...but they don't do that...i wonder why not?

It's not like a ring of security people is going to be able to stop a suicide bombers blast from 10 feet away, and it's not like the bomber is going to be terribly concerned for his or her own safety is it!

I agree with the OP..the Terrorists are very conspicuous by their absence...and their choice of target.

top topics

22