Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

a reply to: skyeagle409

The squibs were low-veloctiy compressed air, which had nothing to do with explosives.

Says who?

I've noticed that you are unable to provide your math evidence that proved explosives flung a steel beam 600 feet.

No one has ever asked me that before? Not even you.

Now, explain why squibs are seen in these photos, and take note that explosives were not used.

Who said no explosions were not used?

Still waiting for you to debunk the equations I gave you? But seeing how you have gone out of your way to avoid answering the question or debunking the Math, tells me you don't understand it.

originally posted by: Pistoche
I believe part of the reason many Americans balk at alternatives to the official story is due to the sheer number of lives lost on that fateful day. They feel as if it's disrespectful to the fallen to question the events of that day and engage in "conspiracy theories". However, I think the complete opposite should hold true; it is disrespectful to the departed to not thoroughly question and investigate the events of that day which eventually led to the murder of thousands of people, and millions more over the ensuing years.

Almost every American has question marks in their mind about the events. Many don't believe the story the government is selling, but what difference does it make?

If the government came clean right now with a breaking news announcement, what would change?

People would keep on doing exactly what they were doing before. We would still have the same handlers, and we would do absolutely nothing different in our own lives.

This is a horse that has been beaten too often, and too long. If we believe that our government is rogue, corrupt, and an enemy of the American people, yet we do nothing, we can no longer blame the government.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Phage

I didn't ask about A. I asked about the derivation of α, in particular where the value for Cd came from. α is described as representing the Rayleigh drag coefficient, an important factor in α being Cd. I'm not sure why the value for Cd which was selected, came from.

Apparently you do not understand the equations and your questions are really silly.

It's like you are asking: a+7=9. Your method of trying to discredit the equation is becoming Juvenal.

Not surprisingly, it is apparent that you don't know anything at all about what you posted. The equations are not in question; just why that particular Cd was selected.

a reply to: Informer1958

Says the laws of physics. You should have noticed the squibs didn't appear until after the collapse of the WTC buildings began, an important fact that 9/11 conspiracy theorist somehow overlooked. That indicates the squibs were generated by the collapse itself, not by explosives.

No one has ever asked me that before? Not even you.

Well, explain why this video does not depict steel beams being flung anywhere during demolition implosions.

Still waiting for you to debunk the equations I gave you?

Simple! You think the equations support your case that explosives flung a steel beam hundreds of feet when they depict no such thing. The video I've just posted proves that your equations do not fit what you claim. In other words, you do not understand what you have posted.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Says the laws of physics. You should have noticed the squibs didn't appear until after the collapse of the WTC buildings began, an important fact that 9/11 conspiracy theorist somehow overlooked. That indicates the squibs were generated by the collapse itself, not by explosives.

This is your "opinion" not a fact.

Well, explain why this video does not depict steel beams being flung anywhere during demolition implosions.

If one chooses to close their eyes, then one cannot see it.

Simple. You think the equations support your case that explosives flung a steel beam hundreds of feet when they depict no such thing.

Your statement is false. You can claim, or assume as much as you like, however the Math proves it. And there is nothing you can do about it.

The video I've just posted proves that your equations do not fit what you claim. In other words, you do not understand what you have posted.

The fact is, your video proves nothing. Those videos are not the WTC. And do you know what explosions were used to bring down those buildings? Are you saying all these building were using the same explosions as the WTC?

To assume that I am stupid, just proves how desprete you are.

Still waiting for your proof mathematically?

a reply to: Informer1958

how do we not know there were no explosives? thats such a dumb question.

the burden of proof is on the person claiming to know there were explosives. we cant disprove bigfoot, only disprove those that say he exists due to a lack of evidence.

a reply to: vjr1113

how do we not know there were no explosives? thats such a dumb question.

Research WTC 7, it is the smoking gun.

a reply to: Informer1958

wtc was not reinforced to withstand fires and met the same fate as the other two wtc building. like i said before if you had read the thread, wtc is the hail mary of "truthers" and has already been explained.

still no proof of explosives. you only argument is that we can't disprove there were no explosives. a blatant fallacy if ive ever heard one.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: Informer1958

wtc was not reinforced to withstand fires and met the same fate as the other two wtc building. like i said before if you had read the thread, wtc is the hail mary of "truthers" and has already been explained.

still no proof of explosives. you only argument is that we can't disprove there were no explosives. a blatant fallacy if ive ever heard one.

So your saying it did not meet NYC Building code..

a reply to: vjr1113

Thank you for your response.

You are initial to believe what you want.

I am not a daily spoon fed propaganda from mainstream dying media. I certainly do not believe the lies of the OS.

If you believe in the OS of 911 knock your self out, however don't expect educated ATSers to support your beliefs, many of us have years of research and won many debates under our belts.

a reply to: Informer1958

i dont care who you are. you bring proof to an argument. conspiracy falls under the definition of ignorance.

a reply to: Informer1958

There is no smoking gun and no case for explosives and here are proof and notice that there are no sounds of explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed.

a reply to: vjr1113

i dont care who you are. you bring proof to an argument. conspiracy falls under the definition of ignorance.

Apparently, you have not been reading this thread, I and many ATS have brought proof to the many contents that were asked in this thread.

a reply to: skyeagle409

i really feel for you having to rewatch these videos. i couldn't do it. for what? to rebut a claim that has no traction? good luck to you

a reply to: Informer1958

...many of us have years of research and won many debates under our belts.

That is false and in fact, you have been caught posting false and misleading information and outright disinformation from "AE911 Truth."

a reply to: skyeagle409

There is no smoking gun and no case for explosives and here are proof and notice that there are no sound of explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed.

Still using edited videos I see. Skyeagle how many times were you called out for using these same videos that were proven to be edited?

a reply to: Informer1958

yes and you proof is wrong and has been rejected. but if thats the best you can do, thats the best you can do. prove beyond a reasonable doubt there were explosives planted.

by the way loud noised does not equal proof of explosives, only loud noises.

a reply to: skyeagle409

That is false and in fact, you have been caught posting false and misleading information and outright disinformation

So have you..

a reply to: skyeagle409

That is false and in fact, you have been caught posting false and misleading information and outright disinformation from "AE911 Truth."

Now you are making up fallacies against me personally.

Please prove that I tell lies with evidence?

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: Informer1958

wtc was not reinforced to withstand fires and met the same fate as the other two wtc building. like i said before if you had read the thread, wtc is the hail mary of "truthers" and has already been explained.

still no proof of explosives. you only argument is that we can't disprove there were no explosives. a blatant fallacy if ive ever heard one.

So your saying it did not meet NYC Building code..

obviously the NYC code wasn't enough