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.

# Somone debunk or explain this please.

page: 16
0
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:31 PM
Hey Wizy,

All the "you guys are all conjecture no proof etc. etc. etc." stuff was an amusing read, but I noticed that you've failed to respond to my post.

I'm still looking forward to your explanation for the problem I've pointed out. I was expecting an evasion, but you just flat-out ignored it. That makes me sad.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Lumos

spartacus_wi
Only if you don't understand that mass times velocity = energy.

mass times velocity is MOMENTUM, Einstein. Just drop the pretense and admit you have no f***ing clue.

Hey, Einstein... what is MOMENTUM? It's a force with a direction....guess which direction in this case?

the Newton (measurement of force) = mass * distance/time^2

Guess what distance/time^2 equals? that's right velocity.

Momentum is force I thought the direction was obvious..that's why 13 floors can overcome the mass of 97 floors...which is an incorrect statement anyway...because 13 floors only need to overwhelm 1 floor..then it's 14 overwhelming 1, then 15 overwhelming 1...

(Do you get the idea?)

As for the squibs going off AFTER the collapse starts...yeah they planned it that way so that CT's would have something to point at

And here's a clue for those asking how compressed air turns corners... get a clue it doesn't "turn" corners! It's compressed...that means it's compressed every where!

You keep demanding proof of common sense...You don't get it...you are the ones with the whacky ideas...YOU need to show definitive proof...show me how a demo charge can go off in slow mo.... and explain to me how shaped charges (squibs) can go off in such a unique way.

Your own photos show that the exhausts in the WTC are completely unlike those of any demo images you have....those are jets of air..not explosive gases.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:05 AM

Originally posted by BannedintheUSA
Explain this to me Spartacus:

I wasn't aware that building came crashing down just for the hell of it.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by BannedintheUSA]

Seen any shots of the other side of that building?... one image, like one side of a story, does not the whole truth make.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:30 AM

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:38 AM

spartacus_wi
the Newton (measurement of force) = mass * distance/time^2

Guess what distance/time^2 equals? that's right velocity.

You are 100% incorrect.

Distance/Time^2 = ACCELERATION
Distance/Time = VELOCITY

FORCE = MASS x ACCELERATION

not

FORCE = MASS X VELOCITY

Think about it this way: An object at rest on a table has zero MOMENTUM BUT it is still exerting FORCE on the table because of the acceleration of gravity. An example:

Say we have a 1 kg brick resting on a desk.

Momentum = 1 kg x 0 m/s (because it has no velocity)
Momentum = 0 kg * m/s

Force = 1 kg x 9.8 m/s^2 (the force of gravity)
Force = 9.8 Newtons (even though it is AT REST)

Apparently you have ZERO formal physics training even at a high school level.

If you are going to rewrite the laws of physics that is cool, just do not expect anyone to believe anything else you have to say. Posts like this take your credibility to a number dangerously approaching zero.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:00 AM

Originally posted by spartacus_wi

Guess what distance/time^2 equals? that's right velocity.

Distance/time squared is acceleration. If you want to lump acceleration and velocity together, then I suggest you invest in a physics book and calculus book. Acceleration is related to velocity by their derivatives. Velocity is speed that has a direction which is equal to distance/time not distance/time squared. Force is mass X acceleration not mass X velocity. Just trying to clear some things up.

edit: err...I guess slap nuts already cleared things up for us.

[edit on 6/2/2006 by Griff]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:00 PM
Spartacus, give me a break. Your comments on that gives me enough evidence to reasonably throw anything else you have to say on this matter in the inconclusive/unreasonable bin with the rest of the NIST report.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:13 PM
Funny, when you guys point out spartacus' error, it's alright - when I do, I get warned. Guess that's called moderation...impartial as always here on ATS. Isn't that true Mirthful You?

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:22 PM
I was wondering the same thing myself Lumos. When he actually called you Einstein back and didn't recieve a warn, I too was perplexed. I've also noticed alot more people who disagree with the official story being warned or even sometimes banned for things that others get away with.

Back on topic.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:23 PM

Originally posted by spartacus_wi

Originally posted by BannedintheUSA
Explain this to me Spartacus:

I wasn't aware that buildings came crashing down just for the hell of it.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by BannedintheUSA]

Seen any shots of the other side of that building?... one image, like one side of a story, does not the whole truth make.

Yeah, isn't that so convenient for you "official story" believers. Not one single picture available showing the other side of the building.
.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 02:24 PM
i actually though spart lost his creditablity a while ago..and so far no one with any REAL creditablity has challenged us...spart is just blabbing a losing battle, never provides any real proof

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:51 PM
Pleas4e stay on topic.

www.911research.com...
You can see it on video
[edit on 2-6-2006 by Tasketo]

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Tasketo]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:06 PM
Are you kidding?

Take another look at your vid there bro, maybe you need a new moniter?
Maybe you blinked at the wrong time

If I could DL that vid I'd make stills for you...

[edit on 2/6/2006 by ANOK]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:08 PM
Yeah... you are right, I was confused because my fox 5 image didnt shopw that so I thought that new image was the same as mine but faked.

But you can see it in the video. www.911research.com...

Its true.

Now what do people have to say, that picture is real. 2 seconds into the video you can see it if you look closely.

How does air pressure make a damn fireball? Is this the smoking gun...literally?

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Tasketo]

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Tasketo]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:16 PM
No problem mate, thanx for being honest. A lot of people on here would still claim to not see them so they wouldn't have to admit they were wrong...

Squibs, no doubt about it IMO. Nothing much else they could be...Either that or magic, super compressed, physics defying air.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:28 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
Squibs, no doubt about it IMO. Nothing much else they could be...Either that or magic, super compressed, physics defying air.

Yeah, super-compressed when they couldn't have possibly been compressed much more than 2 atmospheres.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:57 PM
hmmm just to add on to the 9/11 Conspiracy..anyone reading the news today? Rumsfeild slipped out that Flight 93 was shot down

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:44 PM
Okay, wait...I've seen some people claim that a shaped charge will cause a squib. I'm sorry, but that's not true. A shaped charge has a very localized and confined area of damage. It won't cause a big jet of debris such as the "squibs" being discussed in these videos and photos. Does that mean shaped charges weren't involved? No. But we should make sure we don't equate the squibs themselves to a "shaped charge detonation". These would NOT be made by a shaped charge detonation. THAT I'm saying with confidence.

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 08:25 PM
Explosives are their own entity, therefore wouldn't be flowing with the building as shown on 9/11

Squibs are quick and rapid. Watch some demolition videos and you'll see what I mean. CD does not create slow motion squibs.

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 08:54 PM

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
Squibs are quick and rapid. Watch some demolition videos and you'll see what I mean. CD does not create slow motion squibs.

Does that not depend upon the explosives?

The smaller ones were quick. The larger ones, nearer the beginnings of the collapses, with the streams of solid dust debris and etc. flowing out, were undoubtedly slowed by air resistance. Small particles like that are affected much more than larger particles. That's what would've created the "slow motion," but not the explosives themselves.

top topics

0