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:

# Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

page: 58
55
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:26 PM

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: vjr1113

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

I agree, they never plan for bombs.

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:27 PM

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.

Care to prove me wrong? No one else has.

Lets see your mathematics proving what science has proved? This is a challenge for you to prove me wrong.

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and

squib ejections like Figure 4 with those terms included. Thus in the ejection the downward
acceleration is given by:

(1) a = dv/dt = g - α v2
.
where the Rayleigh drag coefficient for objects at high velocity v is:

(2) α = ρ ACd/2m

where ρ is the air density = 1.293 kg/m3

at 1 atmosphere pressure and 0o
C, A is the area at
the front of the moving material in the plume, m the material's mass, and Cd is a
dimensionless drag coefficient. Cd can be 0.25 for sleek automobiles, and will taken as 0.5 in
our calculations. Note that this can be rewritten in terms of the ratio of air density to the
density of the ejected material by designating l as the typical length of the ejected
projectile, as:

(3) α = (ρair/ρeject) Cd/2ml

A table below summarizes some typical values of α for various material parameters.
Table: Values of α for selected material parameters
material α l

0.001 5 in

cement, glass 0.003 1.5 in
0.01 0.5 in

0.001 1.7 in

steel 0.003 0.6 in
0.01 0.2 in

Solving (1) for v(t) by separation of variables yields the downward velocity vd and
downward distance y:

(4) vd(t)= (g/α )1/2 tanh [(g α )1/2t]
(5) y(t) = (1/α) ln cosh [(g α )1/2t]

So where does this squib material hit the ground? If we take y to be the height of the
ejection, we can solve the last equation for t, the time the material remains in the air.
Multiply that t by the horizontal velocity vh of the squib material, and we have the
horizontal distance x it travels. The equation of motion for the horizontal movement of the
material is:

(6) a = dv/dt = - α v2

which solves by separation of variables, yielding:

(7) vh(t)= vo/(1 + α vot)

(8) x(t) = (1/α) ln (1 + α vot)

where vo is the velocity of initial ejection from the tower. Taking t to be the time the
material remains in the air from (5) (solving for t after setting y=h) gives x(t) = xhit, the
distance the material travels away from the tower. Graphs of that distance xhit versus the α
for the material are shown in Figures 5 and 6 for ejections from about 1304 feet (400
meters) and 489 feet (150 m).

www.journalof911studies.com...

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:29 PM

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

Thanks! It seems that there are 9/11 conspiracy theorist who are very slow in their way of thinking. They haven't gotten the hint that demolition explosions make a lot of noise fo and that explosives do not fling huge steel beams horizontally during real demolition implosions.

They haven't gotten the hint even after I posted a photo of steel columns of WTC 1 standing within a huge bomb crater after the 1993 bombing.

The Truth Movement is a joke and has made a mockery of itself over the years. For an example, I once posted a reference to a hoaxed video of WTC 7 and just days later, and unknowingly that I made such a reference, 9/11 conspiracy theorist used that same hoaxed video that I referred r and posted that the hoaxed video was proof that explosives took down WTC 7. They also failed to notice that the hoaxed video was a reversed imagery of WTC 7 or noticed the little notation added to the video that the video was a hoax.

Simply amazing!!
edit on 28-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:33 PM

which solves by separation of variables, yielding:

(7) vh(t)= vo/(1 + α vot)

(8) x(t) = (1/α) ln (1 + α vot)

where vo is the velocity of initial ejection from the tower. Taking t to be the time the
material remains in the air from (5) (solving for t after setting y=h) gives x(t) = xhit, the
distance the material travels away from the tower. Graphs of that distance xhit versus the α
for the material are shown in Figures 5 and 6 for ejections from about 1304 feet (400
meters) and 489 feet (150 m).

Just to let you know that your figures do not apply to explosives in regard to the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, which proves my case that you don't even understand what you've posted.

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:35 PM

Thanks! It seems that there are 9/11 conspiracy theorist who are very slow in their way of thinking. They haven't gotten the hint that demolition explosions make a lot of noise fo and that explosives do not fling huge steel beams horizontally during real demolition implosions.

No you are sadly wrong. OS supporters who believe in their governments lies and are convinced they do no wrong, or would never be corrupt clearly have some serous issues.

The fact is, Talking to many OS supporters is like talking to a brick wall. Since your dead set on demonizing everyone who does not support the OS, I feel I have a right to express my "opinion" as well.
edit on 28-12-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:36 PM

thats not enough to prove explosives were planted. if you're gonna copy and paste from some baised website. then we are truly done here.

edit on 28-12-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:37 PM

Let's remember, you are the person who has been caught passing disinformation from discredited, "AE911 Truth." Didn't you even catch the hint that former associates of "AE911 Truth" have attacked Richard Gage and his disorganization for its misdeeds and mishandling of its financial affairs?

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:38 PM

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:42 PM

The Truth Movement is a joke and has made a mockery of itself over the years.

The fact is, Anyone asking questions concerning 911 is the Truth movement.

For an example, I once posted a reference to a hoaxed video of WTC 7 and just days later, and unknowingly that I made such a reference, 9/11 conspiracy theorist used that same hoaxed video that I referred r and posted that the hoaxed video was proof that explosives took down WTC 7. They also failed to notice that the hoaxed video was a reversed imagery of WTC 7 or noticed the little notation added to the video that the video was a hoax.

Simply amazing!!

What is "simply amazing" you were just caught using edited videos in desperation to support your views of the demise of the WTC.

Now that is simply amazing!!

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:42 PM

No you are sadly wrong. OS supporters who believe in their governments lies and are convinced they do no wrong, or would never be corrupt clearly have some serous issues.

14 years and counting, and since then, the Truth Movement has made a mockery of itself.

Now, 9/11 conspiracy theorist are fighting among themselves over nuclear weapons vs. space beams and thermite vs. explosives. They can't even agree among themselves how United 93 crashed.

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:43 PM

originally posted by: vjr1113
have some more by real scientists

Another one with propaganda , going to post the discovery channel stuff next..

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:44 PM

What is "simply amazing" you were just caught using edited videos in desperation to support your views of the demise of the WTC.

Apparently, the videos in question are authentic videos. Those videos have made a mockery of the Truth Movement because people can obtain those same unedited videos from major news sources and look what you've posted.
edit on 28-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:45 PM

the irony is real. mainstream science is wrong, but conspiracy "science" is right. we in the mainstream science community reject you poor science.

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:47 PM

Prove it with evidence for all to see, otherwise, you have no case.

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:47 PM

Let's remember, you are the person who has been caught passing disinformation from discredited, "AE911 Truth." Didn't you even catch the hint that former associates of "AE911 Truth" have attacked Richard Gage and his disorganization for its misdeeds and mishandling of its financial affairs?

You are calling me out as a liar.

I asked you to prove to the casual ATS readers where I have told lies? All you have done so far, is continue to make fraudulent comments towards me because I asked you to prove the math equations that I brought to back my claim.

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:50 PM

the irony is real. mainstream science is wrong, but conspiracy "science" is right. we in the mainstream science community reject you poor science.

Their brand of science supports silent detonation explosions that somehow are not depicted within the seismic data they were designed to detect demolition explosions.

In other words, they are trying to pack a hundred pounds of nonsense into a five pound bag of reality.

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:52 PM

That won't fly because I have already pointed out that your figures do not apply to any explosives as the WTC buildings collapsed, which proves my point that you don't even understand what you've posted.

Let me add this photo that backs what I have asserted in regard that you do not understand what you have posted.

The Photo that Proves My Case
edit on 28-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:53 PM
more

where exactly do people find explosives in a video like this.

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:54 PM

the irony is real. mainstream science is wrong,

Yes it is specially when it is bought and paid for by government money.

Government science concerning 911 has been proven to be "pseudo science" many years ago.

but conspiracy "science" is right.

It is right because it is not bought and paid for by a proven criminal government hiding everything.

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:55 PM

That won't fly because I have already pointed out that your figures do not apply to any explosives as the WTC buildings collapsed, which proves my point that you don't even understand what you've posted.

Where?

new topics

top topics

55