Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

a reply to: wildb

Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact it is the science we stand behind, it is the science that proves the OS false..

Evidence please! No evidence, no case.

Experts and the laws of physics have proven that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

We know there were no explosives because there is absolutely no evidence that explosives were involved and the collapse of the WTC buildings is not indicative of demolition implosions, which demolition experts have stated time and time again.

For sake of an argument, let's say that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were demolished legally to clear the way for new construction, but looking at the surrounding damage to nearby buildings, what insurance company is going to pay for the damage incurred to the surrounding area?

To sum that up, the collapse of the WTC buildings were not indicative of the way demolition implosions are carried out. In fact, real demolition explosions do not fling steel beams hundreds of feet away from the affected building because the blast waves flow around steel columns like wind flowing around a flag pole, and an example is where steel columns remained standing within a huge bomb crater after the 1993 bombing of WTC 1. There were no steel beams flung hundreds of feet.

Another case against explosives lies in the fact that in order for explosives to be effective against steel frame buildings, explosives must firmly be placed on the steel columns and if properly placed firmly on those steel columns, the detonations would have sent shock signals through the steel columns and into the ground where seismic monitors would have detected the signals, and yet, the operators of seismic monitors have stated that their seismic monitors did not detect demolition explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed. That fact alone proves that the WTC buildings were not taken down by explosives, but to add to that, no one heard demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed and there are no sounds of explosions in any valid WTC video, and we can close out the case against explosives by the fact that no explosive hardware was ever found within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Without such evidence, there was no need to waste time and money looking evidence of explosives when no such evidence existed on video, audio, seismic monitors or even within the rubble. Secondly, the fact that there were no secondary explosions observed during the impacts suffered by WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 nor during the collapse of those buildings, is the final nail in the coffin of such a claim.

So once again, there is no case for explosives.

a reply to: Informer1958

Here is just a fraction of the mathematics scientist used to reach their conclusions.

Can you explain how α was derived?
Can you point out where the velocity of entrained air is considered?

a reply to: Informer1958

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
Widespread Impact Damage

That proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that no explosives were responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings because in real demolition implosions, steel beams are not flung hundreds of feet by explosives.

Here is just a fraction of the mathematics scientist used to reach their conclusions. Something you will never see from the OS supporters in my opinion.

Now, do the math that you posted and explain to us why a huge bomb failed to fling these steel columns anywhere and then, explain why the steel columns are still sitting within that huge bomb crater.

Now, go ahead, do the math and answer those questions. Show us your math as to why explosives failed to dislodge those steel columns in the photo.

Photo: Steel Colums of WTC 1 Sitting Within Huge Bomb Crater

a reply to: pteridine

have looked at the video as you suggested. I observed gravitational collapses in explosiveless demolitions that shows explosives are not necessary if support is removed somewhere below the top of the building so that the upper floors can collapse the rest of the building

Ok Good, the upper floors did indeed destroy the lower part of the building, but in the process what happened to the top of the building, go back and look at the building at 37 seconds..IIRC, what do you see ? we are getting very close to the answer, but I am not going to give it to you, I want you to see it for yourself.

a reply to: wildb

but I am not going to give it to you,

But...but..you promised:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

Phage, cut me some slack will ya, I am trying to get people to see some things for themselves..

a reply to: skyeagle409

That proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that no explosives were responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings because in real demolition implosions, steel beams are not flung hundreds of feet by explosives.

Who says?

I see you can not disprove the mathematics that proves your claim is utterly false.

Care to show your work?

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

have looked at the video as you suggested. I observed gravitational collapses in explosiveless demolitions that shows explosives are not necessary if support is removed somewhere below the top of the building so that the upper floors can collapse the rest of the building

Ok Good, the upper floors did indeed destroy the lower part of the building, but in the process what happened to the top of the building, go back and look at the building at 37 seconds..IIRC, what do you see ? we are getting very close to the answer, but I am not going to give it to you, I want you to see it for yourself.

I see a collapsed building. The collapse looked remarkably like the WTC even with a smaller, more rigid building. It looks as though gravity did it all and the building was much smaller than the WTC. I wonder what the terminal velocity of the WTC was.

a reply to: wildb

Phage, cut me some slack will ya, I am trying to get people to see some things for themselves..

When it comes to physics, looking at videos doesn't really prove much.

a reply to: pteridine

I see a collapsed building. The collapse looked remarkably like the WTC even with a smaller, more rigid building. It looks as though gravity did it all and the building was much smaller than the WTC. I wonder what the terminal velocity of the WTC was.

Your are mostly correct, however You may be missing the point, in the end result what is the difference between the upper part of the building and the bottom part of the building ??

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

I see a collapsed building. The collapse looked remarkably like the WTC even with a smaller, more rigid building. It looks as though gravity did it all and the building was much smaller than the WTC. I wonder what the terminal velocity of the WTC was.

Your are mostly correct, however You may be missing the point, in the end result what is the difference between the upper part of the building and the bottom part of the building ??

If gravity did the job, why would any explosives be needed at all?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: wildb

Phage, cut me some slack will ya, I am trying to get people to see some things for themselves..

When it comes to physics, looking at videos doesn't really prove much.

Yes it does, I'll get back to you later.. it's getting late, going to crash soon, but I welcome your input..

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

I see a collapsed building. The collapse looked remarkably like the WTC even with a smaller, more rigid building. It looks as though gravity did it all and the building was much smaller than the WTC. I wonder what the terminal velocity of the WTC was.

Your are mostly correct, however You may be missing the point, in the end result what is the difference between the upper part of the building and the bottom part of the building ??

If gravity did the job, why would any explosives be needed at all?

Don't get ahead of yourself, in the end result what is the difference between the upper part of the building and the bottom part of the building ??

Answer this first, your opinion or your observation answer this question for yourself, what did you observe.

a reply to: wildb

wildb,
What are you trying to show? The video you provided shows that a gravitational collapse was most similar to the WTC collapses. No added energy was required for the collapse.

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: wildb

wildb,
What are you trying to show? The video you provided shows that a gravitational collapse was most similar to the WTC collapses. No added energy was required for the collapse.

Ok go back and look, the top part of the building destroyed the lower part, and in the process the upper part destroyed it self, evident at 37 seconds into the video, do you agree or disagree, this is a very important point I am trying to get you to see, And I have reason to do so..

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

I see a collapsed building. The collapse looked remarkably like the WTC even with a smaller, more rigid building. It looks as though gravity did it all and the building was much smaller than the WTC. I wonder what the terminal velocity of the WTC was.

Your are mostly correct, however You may be missing the point, in the end result what is the difference between the upper part of the building and the bottom part of the building ??

If gravity did the job, why would any explosives be needed at all?

Don't get ahead of yourself, in the end result what is the difference between the upper part of the building and the bottom part of the building ??

Answer this first, your opinion or your observation answer this question for yourself, what did you observe.

Remember that the base of the WTC was many stories below ground so any comparisons of the bases of the buildings is not applicable.

Can you get to the point?

a reply to: Informer1958

Who says?

The laws of physics

I see you can not disprove the mathematics that proves your claim is utterly false.

The laws of physic prove that you don't even understand the mathematical figures you've posted. Now, once again, do the math and explain to us as to why those steel columns remained standing within that bomb crater.

The clock is ticking and I am waiting for your math figures.

a reply to: pteridine

Can you get to the point?

I am trying to get to the point, but I need you to understand what your looking at, when you do I can explain how this apply s to the wtc..

a reply to: wildb

but I need you to understand what your looking at,

You mean that we need to agree with how you interpret what we are looking at?

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Can you get to the point?

I am trying to get to the point, but I need you to understand what your looking at, when you do I can explain how this apply s to the wtc..

Pretend that you have to tell me what you think is so important. I can see what I am looking at. Is there some aspect that will somehow show that extra energy was involved?